_The Choice of Means of Injuring_
BULLETS IN SAVAGE WARFARE
Sir,--The Somaliland debate was sufficient evidence that The Hague
Convention "respecting the laws and customs of war on land" is far more
talked about than read. Colonel Cobbe had, it appears, complained of the
defective stopping power, as against the foes whom he was encountering,
of the Lee-Metford bullet. It is the old story that wounds inflicted by
this bullet cannot be relied on to check the onrush of a hardy and
fanatical savage, though they may ultimately result in his death.
Whereupon arises, on the one hand, the demand for a more effective
projectile, and, on the other hand, the cry that the proposed substitute
is condemned by "the universal consent of Christendom"; or, in
particular, "by the Convention of The Hague," which, as was correctly
stated by Mr. Lee, prohibits only the use of arms which cause
superfluous injury.
You print to-day two letters enforcing the view of the inefficiency
against savages of the ordinary service bullet. Perhaps you will find
space for a few words upon the question whether the employment for this
purpose of a severer form of projectile, such as the Dum Dum bullet,
would be a contravention of the "laws of war."
The law of the subject, as embodied in general international national
agreements, is to be found in four paragraphs; to which, be it observed,
nothing is added by the unwritten, or customary, law of nations. Of
these paragraphs, which I shall set out textually, three affirm general
principles, while the fourth contains a specific prohibition. The
general provisions are as follows:--
"The progress of civilisation should have the effect of
alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war. The
only legitimate object which States should set before
themselves during war is to weaken the military forces of the
enemy. For this purpose it is sufficient to disable the
greatest possible number of men. This object would be
exceeded by the employment of arms which would uselessly
aggravate the sufferings of disabled men or render their
death inevitable. The employment of such arms would,
therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity." (St.
Petersburg Declaration, 1868. Preamble.)
"The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the
enemy is not unlimited." (Hague _Règlement_, Art. 22.)
"Besides the prohibitions provided by special conventions [the
Declaration of St. Petersburg alone answers to this
description] it is in particular prohibited (_e_) to employ
arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause
superfluous injury." (_Ib._ Art. 23.)
The only special prohibition is that contained in the Declaration of St.
Petersburg, by which the contracting parties--
"Engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among
themselves, the employment by their military or naval forces
of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes which is
either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable
substances."
No one, so far as I am aware, has any wish to employ a bullet weighing
less than 14 oz. which is either explosive or charged as above. So far,
therefore, as the generally accepted laws of warfare are concerned, the
only question as to the employment of Dum Dum or other expanding bullets
is whether they "uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or
render their death inevitable"; in other words, whether they are "of a
nature to cause superfluous injury." It is, however, probable that
people who glibly talk of such bullets being "prohibited by The Hague
Convention" are hazily reminiscent, not of the _Règlement_ appended to
that convention, but of a certain "Declaration," signed by the delegates
of many of the Powers represented at The Hague in 1899, to the effect
that--
"The contracting Powers renounce the use of bullets which
expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets
with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the core,
or is pierced with incisions."
To this declaration neither Great Britain nor the United States are
parties, and it is waste-paper, except for Powers on whose behalf it has
not only been signed, but has also been subsequently ratified.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Athenæum Club, May 2 (1903).
The Declaration last mentioned (No. 3 of the first Peace
Conference) is now something more than waste paper, having been
generally ratified. Great Britain, on August 17, 1907, at the
fourth plenary sitting of the Second Peace Conference,
announced her adhesion to it, as also to the, also generally
ratified, Declaration No. 2 of 1899, which forbids the
employment of projectiles constructed solely for the diffusion
suffocating or harmful gases.
The provisions of Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the _Règlement_
annexed to The Hague Convention of 1899 "concerning the Laws
and Customs of War on Land," as quoted in the letter, have been
textually reproduced in Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of the
_Règlement_ annexed to the Hague Convention, No. iv. of 1907,
on the same subject, ratified by Great Britain on November 27,
1909.
The written agreements as to the choice of weapons may be taken
therefore to start from the general principles laid down in the
preamble to the Declaration of St. Petersburg (though held by
some Powers to err in the direction of liberality), and in
Arts. 22 and 23 (_e_) of The Hague _Règlements_. The specially
prohibited means of destruction are, by the Declaration of St.
Petersburg, explosive bullets; by The Hague _Règlements_, Art.
23 (_a_) poison or poisoned arms; by The Hague Declarations of
1898, Nos. 2 and 3, "projectiles the sole object of which is
the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases," and "bullets
which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as
bullets with a hard casing, which does not entirely cover the
core, or is pierced with incisions." As to Declaration No. 1,
_cf. supra_, p. 22. It must be remarked that the Declarations
of St. Petersburg and of The Hague, unlike The Hague
Règlements, apply to war at sea, as well as on land.
_Cf. supra_, p. 22, and see the author's _The Laws of War on
Land (written and unwritten)_, 1908, pp. 40-43.
GASES
Sir,--The weightily signed medical protest which you publish this
morning will be widely welcomed. The German employment of poisonous
gases for military purposes, which the Allies were obliged, reluctantly,
though necessarily, to reciprocate, was, of course, prohibited by
international Acts to which Germany is a party. Not only does the
Declaration of 1899 specifically render unlawful "the use of projectiles
the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful
gases," but the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 both forbid, in
general terms, the employment of "(_a_) poison or poisoned arms," "(_c_)
arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous
suffering." The United States, like the rest of the world, are a party
to the two Conventions, and would doubtless, after the experiences of
recent years, no longer hesitate, as hitherto, to adhere to the
Declaration of 1899; in accordance with Admiral Mahan's view at that
date, to the effect that "the effect of gas shells has yet to be
ascertained," and, in particular, "whether they would be more, or less,
merciful than missiles now available."
The prohibition ought, no doubt, to be renewed and, if possible,
strengthened; but this is surely not, as your correspondents suggest,
work for the Peace Congress. The rules for naval warfare set out in the
Declaration of Paris of 1856 form no part of the Treaty of Paris of that
year.
I venture to make a similar remark with reference to any discussion by
the Peace Congress of "the freedom of the seas," a topic unfortunately
included by President Wilson among his "14 points." The peace delegates
will be concerned with questions of regroupings of territory, penalties,
and reparation. The rehabilitation and revision of international law is
a different business, and should be reserved for a subsequent
conference.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 29 (1918).
* * * * *