Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

question as to whether, in case of war with Russia, it would remain neutral. The French Government simply declared it would do what France's interests demanded. As is indeed well known, these instructions were never acted upon, consequently they had not the slightest influence on the actual course of events.

No one could seriously doubt that we had not only to fight against the Russian mobilization, but also to fight France. The Russo-French alliance had sufficiently shown by the entire policy pursued by both countries during recent decades that any war would be for us a war on two fronts; and, furthermore, our enemies' own publications in regard to the events of July, 1914, also testify that Russia herself had made sure of France's assistance.

I myself was not in the slightest doubt about this state of affairs when the instructions were sent to Baron von Schoen; but, precisely on that account, we could not disregard the eventuality that perhaps France might provisionally make a declaration of neutrality, which, however, could not be relied upon permanently, and that under cover of her apparent initial neutrality she might complete her preparations in order, at a moment when we were deeply engaged in the East, to fall upon us. I do not need to point out in what a desperate position we should have been placed in such a contingency. Only a neutrality which was securely guaranteed could afford us any protection against such an eventuality.

I would also like to remind French statesmen that Germany proposed yet another form of guarantee for France's neutrality, not in any way connected with the unfulfilled instructions. When the prospect opened which unfortunately rested upon a misunderstanding of the war being restricted through Great Britain's intermediation to the East we expressly declared that the declaration of France's neutrality would offer us complete security if guaranteed by Great Britain. Nothing can more unequivocally demonstrate that we had no intention whatever of assailing France's honor, let alone an attack on France.1

The statements of these distinguished European gentlemen speak for themselves. They require neither comment, criticism, nor confirmation.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

THE DEFENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

It is significant and helpful to note that in France there was formed in 1916 a Committee for the Defense of International Law.2

1 The London Times, March 18, 1918.

2 This Committee has already published the following pamphlets:

At

Les Premières Violations du Droit des Gens par l'Allemagne, Luxembourg et
Belgique, Louis Renault, 1917

Les Violences Allemandes à l'Encontre des non-Combattants, A. Pillet, 1917
Les Déportations du Nord de la France et de la Belgique en vue du Travail forcé et
le Droit International, Jules Basdevant, 1917

L'Évacuation des Territoires occupés par l'Allemagne dans le Nord de la France,
Février-Mars 1917, Paul Fauchille, 1917

the head of the Comité pour la Defense du Droit International was the late Louis Renault. Renault had long occupied the foremost place in the science of international law. His judicial temperament, simplicity of nature, lucidity of thought and expression, his spirit of sincere kindliness, graced a primacy which was ungrudingly conceded. It would be difficult even for one of enemy nationality to accuse Renault of degrading his intellect to support as scientific a contention which had its sole basis in national interest.

The Committee admits that

doubtless it is difficult to ask a jurist to condemn in express terms the conduct of his own government, even when he regards it as blameworthy in the highest degree. He is naturally inclined to defend it, more or less to identify the rule of law with the interest of his own country. But, nevertheless, there is a limit imposed upon men devoted to the study of law and entrusted with its teachings. Not everything should be approved, or, in accordance with prejudice, declared lawful and honorable. In the presence of certain acts silence can be demanded and laudation condemned. After the violation of law, in the presence of actions illegal or barbarous, nothing is more detestable than the attempt to justify them by unreal arguments; this leads to a downright perversion of the moral sense.

Whether or not this passage from the Committee's preface was drafted by Renault, it would express his sentiments.

It is with this spirit that Renault entered upon the discussion of Les Premières Violations du Droit des Gens par l'Allemagne, Luxembourg et Belgique, which was published in 1917, and later translated by Frank Carr, and published by Longmans, Green & Company. In the seventy-eight pages of this pamphlet the legal aspect of these violations of law, which have so often been discussed, are clearly stated, and Renault says, "in conclusion I wish to express my entire conviction of the guilt of Germany and the good right of Belgium." The second pamphlet in the series is by Professor Pillet, and is concerned with German violence against noncombatants.

The third, a pamphlet of sixty-nine pages, is by Professor Basdevant of Grenoble, and relates to deportations from northern France and from Belgium, for forced labor. After a clear and careful consideration of authorities, he finds no precedents for the deportations. Such acts are contrary to conventional and general international law, and in flagrant violation of approved practice, is Professor Basdevant's conclusion.

Monsieur Paul Fauchille, of the Revue Générale de Droit International Public, is the author of a pamphlet upon the evacuation of the territory

occupied by Germany in northern France. In this pamphlet, practice, the Hague and other conventions, and the German rules of war are cited in order to show the disregard of all rules which accompanied the evacuation. Devastation of fields, destruction of fertile lands, injury to water supplies, pillage of public and private buildings, are mentioned as examples of the martyrdom of northern France, that the Germans announced had been transformed into a "land of death." These acts have been justified by German commanders on the usual plea of "military necessity." Even the most liberal interpretation of this plea would not justify the destruction of artistic property, public monuments, and the like. Fauchille looks forward to penal reparation in the treaty of peace for these German violations of the law of war.

These pamphlets present clearly and briefly, from the French point of view, the illegal aspects of the German conduct of warfare. The names of the authors are sufficient to warrant the highest consideration of their conclusions. Behind these names stand the names of the distinguished French Committee for the Defense of International Law, who say

They propose to study scientifically some of the questions raised by the war, to apply to them solutions dictated by legal principles generally recognized, and by the conscience of the civilized world. Not indulging in loud declamation, they will fight the opinions of their enemies with keenness, and sometimes even with passion, but without permitting themselves to be drawn into abuse. Doubtless we do not forget that we are Frenchmen, that our country is engaged in a terrible war, but we will always remember that we are lawyers and that we must respect our science even in the fiercest struggles. To enlighten our conscience and that of our allies and neutrals, to state our common faith in the justice of our cause, such is the task we set before us, and which we shall endeavor to accomplish in all plainness.

GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON.

THE CLOSING OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF JUSTICE

On March 17, 1918, it was announced in the press that the judges of the Central American Court of Justice paid their respects to the President of Costa Rica and took leave of the court, which had ceased to exist because of the failure of a contracting Power to renew the convention creating the court when the term of ten years for which it was concluded had elapsed.

It is not necessary to enter upon a detailed examination of the convention creating the court, or of the reasons which caused one of the

contracting Powers to refuse to be a party to its continuance, as these various matters have been the subject of leading articles and of editorial comments in the JOURNAL. It is, however, proper to express regret that the court should close its doors, inasmuch as it was avowedly the first international court of justice which had been created, and as its successful operation was constantly pointed to as a demonstration of the possibility of judicial settlement of disputes between nations.

Its jurisdiction was very broad, inasmuch as the contracting parties bound themselves, by its first article, "to submit all controversies or questions which may arise among them, of whatsoever nature and no matter what their origin, in case the respective departments of foreign affairs should not have been able to reach an understanding." Its jurisdiction, however, was not limited to the five countries creating it, but international questions between one of the Central American Governments and a foreign government could be submitted to it by special agreement. Nor was this all. Individuals might avail themselves of the court, in accordance with the following terms of Articles 2 and 3:

This court shall also take cognizance of the questions which individuals of one Central American country may raise against any of the other contracting governments, because of the violation of treaties or conventions, and other cases of an international character; no matter whether their own government supports said claim or not; and provided that the remedies which the laws of the respective country provide against such violation shall have been exhausted or that denial of justice shall have been shown. (Art. II.) 2

It shall also have jurisdiction over cases arising between any of the contracting governments and individuals, when by common accord they are submitted to it. (Art. III.) 3

The court has closed its doors, but they can be opened again. The Powers responsible for its creation can call it into being. The peace conference was held in Washington in 1907, where this convention was concluded under the auspices of Mexico and of the United States, and upon the invitation and request of these two Powers, or of the United States alone, a new conference can be called, or the parties to the original convention may be requested and indeed urged to renew it. The United States was not merely the host, it was the sponsor for the court, and the special representative of the United States, the late William I. 1 This JOURNAL: 2: 121, 144, 835; 3: 434; 4: 416; 10: 344, 509; 11: 156, 181, 674. 3 Ibid., p. 2406.

Malloy, Treaties and Conventions, Vol. 2, p. 2400.

Buchanan, was present at all the deliberations of the conference. Indeed, the court itself was the suggestion of Mr. Root, then Secretary of State, as was the conference of the Central American Powers which met in Washington. What one Secretary of State did another can do, and in view of the fact that the United States can not be supposed to be indifferent to the fate of an agency due to its counsel and advice, not to speak of its interest in the countries based upon its treaty with Nicaragua, which was the cause of the suit to which Nicaragua objected, it is to be expected that the United States will, on a proper occasion and when circumstances permit, endeavor to reinstall the court in the Palace of Justice built by the munificence of an American citizen, the portals of which are, for the present, closed to the appeal of justice. JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS

In view of the current rumor, very likely without foundation, that American prisoners captured by Germany are threatened with specially severe treatment, it will not be amiss to call attention to our treaty agreement with her on this subject.

Article XII of the Treaty with Prussia of 1828 recites that the articles from the thirteenth to the twenty-fourth inclusive of the treaty concluded at Berlin in 1799 "are hereby revived with the same force and virtue as if they made part of the context of the present treaty." That these articles of 1799 are regarded as still binding by the Imperial German Government was shown in the correspondence over the wheat ship William P. Frye, sunk in January, 1915. The article of the Treaty of 1799 which covers the treatment of prisoners if the stipulating parties should be at war is numbered XXIV. It reads as follows:

And to prevent the destruction of prisoners of war, by sending them into distant and inclement countries, or by crowding them into close and noxious places, the two contracting parties solemnly pledge themselves to the world and to each other that they will not adopt any such practice; that neither will send the prisoners whom they may take from the other into the East Indies or any other parts of Asia or Africa, but that they shall be placed in some parts of their dominions in Europe or America, in wholesome situations; that they shall not be confined in dungeons, prison-ships, nor prisons, nor be put into irons, nor bound, nor otherwise restrained in the use of their limbs; that the officers shall be enlarged on their paroles within convenient districts, and have comfortable quarters, and the common men be disposed in cantonments open and extensive

« AnteriorContinuar »