International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2): War and Neutrality. Second EditionOppenheim, L. (Lassa)
History
International Law. A Treatise. Volume 2 (of 2): War and Neutrality. Second Edition
Oppenheim, L. (Lassa)
International law
§ 164. Of ruses there are so many kinds that it is impossible to
enumerate[316] and classify them. But in order to illustrate acts
carried out as ruses some instances may be given. It is hardly necessary
to mention the laying of ambushes and traps, the masking of military
operations such as marches or the erection of batteries and the like,
the feigning of attacks or flights or withdrawals, the carrying out of a
surprise, and other stratagems employed every day in war. But it is
important to know that, when useful, feigned signals and bugle-calls may
be ordered, the watchword of the enemy may be used, deceitful
intelligence may be disseminated,[317] the signals and the bugle-calls
of the enemy may be mimicked[318] to mislead his forces. And even such
detestable acts[319] as bribery of enemy commanders and officials in
high position, and secret seduction of enemy soldiers to desertion, and
of enemy subjects to insurrection, are frequently committed, although
many writers protest. As regards the use of the national flag, the
military ensigns, and the uniforms of the enemy, theory and practice
are unanimous in rejecting it during actual attack and defence, since
the principle is considered inviolable that during actual fighting
belligerent forces ought to be certain who is friend and who is foe. But
many[320] publicists maintain that until the actual fighting begins
belligerent forces may by way of stratagem make use of the national
flag, military ensigns, and uniforms of the enemy. Article 23 (_f_) of
the Hague Regulations does not prohibit any and every use of these
symbols, but only their _improper_ use, thus leaving the question
open,[321] what uses are proper and what are not. Those who have
hitherto taught the admissibility of the use of these symbols outside
actual fighting can correctly maintain that the quoted article 23 (_f_)
does not prohibit it.[322]
[Footnote 316: See _Land Warfare_, § 144, where a great number of
legitimate ruses are enumerated.]
[Footnote 317: See the examples quoted by Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No. 2761.]
[Footnote 318: See Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No. 2760.]
[Footnote 319: The point has been discussed above in § 162.]
[Footnote 320: See, for instance, Hall, § 187; Bluntschli, § 565;
Taylor, § 488; Calvo, IV. No. 2106; Pillet, p. 95; Longuet, § 54. But,
on the other hand, the number of publicists who consider it illegal to
make use of the enemy flag, ensigns, and uniforms, even before an actual
attack, is daily becoming larger; see, for instance, Lueder in
Holtzendorff, IV. p. 458; Mérignhac, p. 166; Pradier-Fodéré, VI. No.
2760; Bonfils, No. 1074; _Kriegsbrauch_, p. 24. As regards the use of
the enemy flag on the part of men-of-war, see below, in § 211.]
[Footnote 321: Some writers maintain that article 23 (_f_) of the Hague
Regulations has settled the controversy, but they forget that this
article speaks only of the _improper_ use of the enemy ensigns and
uniform. See _Land Warfare_, § 152.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account