(16) The Declaration of London of February 26, 1909, concerning the Laws of Naval War, which was signed at the Conference of London by Great Britain, Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, Japan, Holland, and Russia, but is not yet ratified. This Declaration enacts rules concerning blockade, contraband, unneutral service, destruction of neutral prizes, transfer of vessels to a neutral flag, enemy character, convoy, and resistance to search.[83] [Footnote 83: The United States of America (see above, vol. I. § 32), published on June 27, 1900, a body of rules for the use of her navy under the title _The Laws and Usages of War on Sea_--the so-called "United States Naval War Code." This code, although withdrawn on February 4, 1904, will undoubtedly be the starting-point of a movement for a Naval War Code to be generally agreed upon by the Powers. See below, § 179.] [Sidenote: Binding force of the Laws of War.] § 69. As soon as usages of warfare have by custom or treaty evolved into laws of war, they are binding upon belligerents under all circumstances and conditions, except in the case of reprisals[84] as retaliation against a belligerent for illegitimate acts of warfare by the members of his armed forces or his other subjects. In accordance with the German proverb, _Kriegsraeson geht vor Kriegsmanier_ (_necessity in war overrules the manner of warfare_), many German authors[85] and the Swiss-Belgian Rivier[86] maintain that the laws of war lose their binding force in case of extreme necessity. Such case of extreme necessity is said to have arisen when violation of the laws of war alone offers either a means of escape from extreme danger or the realisation of the purpose of war--namely, the overpowering of the opponent. This alleged exception to the binding force of the Laws of War, is, however, not at all generally accepted by German writers, for instance, Bluntschli does not mention it. English, American, French, and Italian writers do not, so far as I am aware, acknowledge it. The protest of Westlake,[87] therefore, against such an exception is the more justified, as a great danger would be involved by its admission. [Footnote 84: See below, § 248.] [Footnote 85: See, for instance, Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 254-257; Ullmann, § 170; Meurer, II. pp. 7-15. Liszt, who in former editions agreed with these writers, deserts their ranks in the sixth edition (§ 24, IV. 3), and correctly takes the other side. See also Nys, III. p. 202, and Holland, _War_, § 2, where the older literature is quoted.] [Footnote 86: See Rivier, II. p. 242.] [Footnote 87: See Westlake, II. pp. 115-117, and Westlake, _Chapters_, p. 238.]