strengthening of positions by concentration of more troops on the spot, erection and strengthening of defences, repairing of breaches of besieged fortresses, withdrawing of troops, making of fresh batteries on the part of besiegers without advancing, and the like, being allowed. As the Hague Regulations do not mention the matter, the controversy still remains unsettled. I believe the opinion of the minority to be correct, since an armistice does not mean anything else than a cessation of actual hostilities, and it is for the parties who agree upon an armistice to stipulate such special conditions as they think necessary or convenient. This applies particularly to the other controversial questions as to revictualling of besieged places and as to intercourse, commercial and otherwise, of the inhabitants of the region where actual fighting was going on before the armistice. As regards revictualling, it has been correctly maintained that, if it were not allowed, the position of the besieged forces would thereby be weakened by the action of the armistice. But I cannot see why this should be an argument to hold revictualling permissible. The principle _vigilantibus jura sunt scripta_ applies to armistices as well as to all other legal transactions. It is for the parties to prepare such arrangements as really suit their needs and wants. Thus, during the Franco-German War an armistice for twenty-five days proposed in November 1870 fell to the ground on the Germans refusing to grant the revictualling of Paris.[457] It seems to be the intention of the Hague Regulations that the parties should always stipulate those special conditions which they need. Article 39 pronounces this intention regarding intercourse, commercial and otherwise, during armistices, by the following words:--"It is for the contracting parties to settle in the terms of the armistice what communications may be held within the theatre of war with the population and with each other." [Footnote 457: See Pradier-Fodéré, VII. No. 2908, where the question of revictualling during an armistice is discussed at some length, and the opinions of many publicists from Grotius to our own days are quoted.] It must be specially mentioned that for the purpose of preventing the outbreak of hostilities during an armistice it is usual to agree upon so-called lines of demarcation[458]--that is, a small neutral zone between the forces facing each other which must not be entered by members of either force. But such lines of demarcation do not exist, if they are not specially stipulated by the armistice concerned. [Footnote 458: See Pradier-Fodéré, VII. No. 2901.] [Sidenote: Commencement of Armistices.]