FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83  
84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   >>   >|  
venture to ask the hospitality of your columns for an adequate discussion of the gallant officer's second question, as to the binding force attributable to international law. Upon this I may, however, perhaps venture to refer him to some brief remarks, addressed to you a good many years ago, and now to be found at pp. 101 and 105 of the new edition of my "Letters to _The Times_ upon War and Neutrality (1881-1918)." I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, April 24 (1914). ATTACK FROM THE AIR THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Sir,--In reply to Colonel Jackson's inquiry as to any rule of international law bearing upon aerial attack upon London, I referred him to the, now generally accepted, prohibition of the "bombardment, _by any means whatever_, of towns, &c., which are not defended." This rule has been growing into its present form ever since the Brussels Conference of 1874. The words italicised were added to it in 1907, to show that it applies to the action of _aeronefs_ as well as to that of land batteries. It clearly prohibits any wanton bombardment, undertaken with no distinctly military object in view, and the prohibition is much more sweeping, for reasons not far to seek, than that imposed by Convention No. ix. of 1907 upon the treatment of coast towns by hostile fleets. So far good; but further questions arise, as to which no diplomatically authoritative answers are as yet available; and I, for one, am not wise above that which is written. One asks, for instance, what places are _prima facie_ "undefended." Can a "great centre of population" claim this character, although it contains barracks, stores, and bodies of troops? For the affirmative I can vouch only the authority of the Institut de Droit International, which in 1896, in the course of the discussion of a draft prepared by General Den Beer Pourtugael and myself, adopted a statement to that effect. A different view seems to be taken in the German _Kriegsbrauch_, p. 22. One also asks: Under what circumstances does a place, _prima facie_, "undefended," cease to possess that character? Doubtless so soon as access to it is forcibly denied to the land forces of the enemy; hardly, to borrow an illustration from Colonel Jackson's letter of Thursday last, should the place merely decline to submit to the dictation of two men in an aeroplane. I read with great pleasure the colonel's warning, addressed to the United Service Institution,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83  
84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

venture

 

prohibition

 

bombardment

 

addressed

 

international

 

character

 

discussion

 

Jackson

 

undefended

 

Colonel


troops
 

affirmative

 

stores

 
bodies
 

barracks

 

questions

 

diplomatically

 

fleets

 
treatment
 

hostile


authoritative

 

answers

 
instance
 

places

 

centre

 
written
 

population

 

Pourtugael

 

illustration

 

borrow


letter
 

Thursday

 
access
 
forcibly
 

forces

 

denied

 

colonel

 

pleasure

 

warning

 

United


Institution
 

Service

 

aeroplane

 

submit

 
decline
 

dictation

 

Doubtless

 

possess

 

General

 
adopted