Grotius, III. c. 22, § 9--Vattel, III. §§ 261-264--Hall, § 194--Lawrence, § 215--Westlake, II. p. 81--Phillimore, III. §§ 122-127--Halleck, II. pp. 319-322--Taylor, §§ 514-516--Wheaton, § 405--Moore, VII. § 1160--Bluntschli, §§ 697-699--Heffter, § 142--Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 527--Ullmann, § 185--Bonfils, Nos. 1259-1267--Despagnet, No. 562--Pradier-Fodéré, VII. Nos. 2917-2926--Rivier, II. pp. 361-362--Nys, III. pp. 514-517--Calvo, IV. §§ 2450-2452--Fiore, III. Nos. 1495-1497, and Code, Nos. 1733-1740--Martens, II. § 127--Longuet, §§ 151-154--Mérignhac, pp. 225-230--Pillet, pp. 361-364--Bordwell, p. 294--Meurer, II. §§ 41-42--Spaight, pp. 249-259--_Kriegsbrauch_, pp. 38-41--Holland, _War_, No. 92--_Land Warfare_, §§ 301-325. [Sidenote: Character and Purpose of Capitulations.] § 226. Capitulations are conventions between armed forces of belligerents stipulating the terms of surrender of fortresses and other defended places, or of men-of-war, or of troops. It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish between a _simple_ and a _stipulated_ surrender. If one or more soldiers lay down their arms and surrender, or if a fortress or a man-of-war surrenders without making any terms whatever, there is no capitulation, for capitulation is a convention stipulating the terms of surrender. Capitulations are military conventions only and exclusively; they must not, therefore, contain arrangements other than those of a local and military character concerning the surrendering forces, places, or ships. If they do contain such arrangements, the latter are not valid, unless they are ratified by the political authorities of both belligerents.[443] The surrender of a certain place or force may, of course, be arranged by some convention containing other than military stipulations, but then such surrender would not originate from a capitulation. And just as is their character, so the purpose of capitulations is merely military--namely, the abandonment of a hopeless struggle and resistance which would only involve useless loss of life on the part of a hopelessly beset force. Therefore, whatever may be the indirect consequences of a certain capitulation, its direct consequences have nothing to do with the war at large, but are local only and concern the surrendering force exclusively. [Footnote 443: See Phillimore, III. § 123, who discusses the promise of Lord William Bentinck to Genoa, in 1814, regarding its independence, which was disowned by the British Government. Phillimore himself disapproves of the attitude of Great Britain, and so do some foreign publicists, as, for instance, Despagnet (No. 562); but the rule that capitulations are military conventions, and that, therefore, such stipulations are not valid as are not of a local military character, is indubitable.] [Sidenote: Contents of Capitulations.]