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
can be regarded; the national existence and independence of the
struggling State is a higher consideration than any individual
well-being.
[Footnote 71: See below, § 66.]
[Sidenote: Civil War.]
§ 59. The characteristics of war as developed above must help to decide
the question whether so-called civil wars are war in the technical
meaning of the term. It has already been stated above (in § 56) that an
armed contention between member-States of a Federal State and the latter
and between a suzerain and its vassal ought to be considered as war
because both parties are real States, although the Federal State as well
as the suzerain may correctly designate it as a rebellion. Such armed
contentions may be called civil wars in a wider sense of the term. In
the proper sense of the term a civil war exists when two opposing
parties within a State have recourse to arms for the purpose of
obtaining power in the State, or when a large portion of the population
of a State rises in arms against the legitimate Government. As war is an
armed contention between _States_, such a civil war need not be from the
beginning, nor become at all, war in the technical sense of the term.
But it may become war through the recognition of each of the contending
parties or of the insurgents as the case may be, as a belligerent
Power.[72] Through this recognition a body of individuals receives an
international position in so far as it is for some parts and in some
points treated as though it were a subject[73] of International Law.
Such recognition may be granted by the very State within the boundaries
of which the civil war broke out, and then other States will in most
cases, although they need not, likewise recognise a state of war as
existing and bear the duties of neutrality. But it may happen that other
States recognise insurgents as a belligerent Power before the State on
whose territory the insurrection broke out so recognises them. In such
case the insurrection is war in the eyes of these other States, but not
in the eyes of the legitimate Government.[74] Be that as it may, it must
be specially observed that, although a civil war becomes war in the
technical sense of the term by recognition, this recognition has a
lasting effect only when the insurgents succeed in getting their
independence established through the defeat of the legitimate Government
and a consequent treaty of peace which recognises their independence.
Nothing, however, prevents the State concerned, after the defeat of the
insurgents and reconquest of the territory which they had occupied, from
treating them as rebels according to the Criminal Law of the land, for
the character of a belligerent Power received through recognition is
lost _ipso facto_ by their defeat and the re-occupation by the
legitimate Government of the territory occupied by them.
[Footnote 72: See below, §§ 76 and 298.]
[Footnote 73: See above, vol. I. § 63.]
[Footnote 74: See below, § 298.]
[Sidenote: Guerilla War.]
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