ipal Law of a State is not allowed to declare that the
outbreak of war suspends or avoids contracts with alien enemies, or
that war prevents alien enemies from bringing an action in the Courts.

On the other hand, England and the United States of America interpret
this article to mean merely that the _occupant of enemy territory_ is
prohibited from declaring abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a
Court of Law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile
party.

What is the cause of this divergent interpretation of an article, the
literal meaning of which seems to be quite clear? The divergence is due
to the different mode of interpretation of statutes resorted to by
continental Courts, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, by British
and American Courts.

Continental Courts take into consideration not only the literal meaning
of a clause of a statute, but also the intention of the legislator as
evidenced by--what I should like to call--the history of the clause.
They look for the intention of the draftsman, they search the
Parliamentary proceedings concerning the clause, and they interpret and
construe the clause with regard to the intention of the draftsman as
well as to the proceedings in Parliament.

Now Article 23(h) of the Hague Regulations was inserted on the motion of
the German delegates to the Second Hague Peace Conference, and there is
no doubt that the German delegates intended by its insertion to prevent
the Municipal Law of belligerents from possessing a rule according to
which the outbreak of war suspends or avoids contracts with alien
enemies, and prohibits alien enemies from bringing an action in the
Courts. It is for this reason that Germany and other continental States
interpret Article 23(h) according to the intention of the German
delegates.

On the other hand, in interpreting and construing a clause of a statute,
British and American Courts refuse to take into consideration the
intention of the draftsman, Parliamentary discussions concerning the
clause, and the like. They only take into consideration the literal
meaning of the clause as it stands in the statute of which it is a part.
Now Article 23(h) is a clause in the Convention concerning the Laws and
Customs of War on Land. It is one of several paragraphs of Article 23
which comprises the prohibition of a number of acts by the armed forces
of belligerents in warfare on land, such as the employment of poison or
poisoned arm