_The Naval Bombardment of Open Coast Towns_
The four letters which first follow were suggested by the
British Naval Manoeuvres of 1888, during which operations
were supposed to be carried on, by the squadron playing the
part of a hostile fleet, which I ventured to assert to be in
contravention of international law. Many letters were written
by naval men in a contrary sense, and the report of a committee
of admirals appointed to consider, among other questions, "the
feasibility and expediency of cruisers making raids on an
enemy's coasts and unprotected towns for the purpose of levying
contributions," was to the effect that "there can be no doubt
about the feasibility of such operations by a maritime enemy
possessed of sufficient power; and as to the expediency, there
can be as little doubt but that any Power at war with Great
Britain will adopt every possible means of weakening her enemy;
and we know of no means more efficacious for making an enemy
feel the pinch of war than by thus destroying his property and
touching his pocket." (_Parl. Paper_, 1889 [c. 5632], pp. 4,
8.) The supposed hostile squadron had, it seems, received
express instructions "to attack any port in Great Britain."
(See more fully in the writer's _Studies in International Law_,
1898, p. 96.) The fifth letter was suggested by a Russian
protest against alleged Japanese action in 1904.
The subsequent history of this controversy, some account of
which will be found at the end of this section, has, it is
submitted, established the correctness of the views maintained
in it.
NAVAL ATROCITIES
Sir,--I trust we may soon learn on authority whether or no the enemies
of this country are conducting naval hostilities in accordance with the
rules of civilised warfare. I read with indignation that the _Spider_
has destroyed Greenock; that she announced her intention of "blowing
down" Ardrossan; that she has been "shelling the fine marine residences
and watering-places in the Vale of Clyde." Can this be true, and was
there really any ground for expecting that "a bombardment of the outside
coast of the Isle of Wight" would take place last night?
Your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Athenæum Club, August 7 (1888).
THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES
Sir,--In a letter which I addressed to you on the 7th inst. I ventured
to point out the discrepancy between the proceedings of certain vessels
belonging to Admiral Tryon's fleet and the rules of civilised warfare.
Your correspondent on board Her Majesty's ship _Ajax_ yesterday told us
something of the opinion of the fleet as to the bombardment and
ransoming of defenceless seaboard towns, going on to predict that, in a
war in which England should be engaged, privateers would again be as
plentiful as in the days of Paul Jones, and assuring us that in such a
war "not the slightest respect would be paid to old-fashioned treaties,
protocols, or other diplomatic documents." Captain James appears, from
his letter which you print to-day, to be of the same opinion as the
fleet, with reference both to bombardments and to privateers; telling us
also in plain language that "the talk about international law is all
nonsense."
Two questions are thus raised which seem worthy of serious
consideration. First, what are the rules of international law with
reference to the bombardment of open towns from the sea (I leave out of
consideration the better understood topic of privateering)? Secondly,
are future wars likely to be conducted without regard to international
law?
1. I need hardly say that I do not, as Captain James supposes, contend
"that unfortified towns will never be bombarded or ransomed."
International law has never prohibited, though it has attempted to
restrict, the bombardment of such towns. Even in 1694 our Government
defended the destruction of Dieppe, Havre, and Calais only as a measure
of retaliation, and in subsequent naval wars operations of this kind
have been more and more carefully limited, till in the Crimean war our
cruisers were careful to abstain from doing further damage than was
involved in the confiscation or destruction of stores of arms and
provisions. The principles involved were carefully considered by the
military delegates of all the States of Europe at the Brussels
Conference of 1874, and their conclusions, which apply, I conceive,
_mutatis mutandis_, to operations conducted by naval forces against
places on land, are as follows:--
"ARTICLE 15.--Fortified places are alone liable to be
besieged. Towns, agglomerations of houses, or villages which
are open or undefended cannot be attacked or bombarded."
"ARTICLE 16.--But if a town, &c., be defended, the commander
of the attacking forces should, before commencing a
bombardment, and except in the case of surprise, do all in his
power to warn the authorities."
"ARTICLE 40.--As private property should be respected, the
enemy will demand from parishes or the inhabitants only such
payments and services as are connected with the necessities of
war generally acknowledged, in proportion to the resources of
the country."
"ARTICLE 41.--The enemy in levying contributions, whether as
equivalents for taxes or for payments which should be made in
kind, or as fines, will proceed, as far as possible, according
to the rules of the distribution and assessment of the taxes
in force in the occupied territory. Contributions can be
imposed only on the order and on the responsibility of the
general in chief."
"ARTICLE 42.--Requisitions shall be made only by the authority
of the commandant of the locality occupied."
These conclusions are substantially followed in the chapter on the
"Customs of War" contained in the _Manual of Military Law_ issued for
the use of officers by the British War Office.
The bombardment of an unfortified town would, I conceive, be lawful--(1)
as a punishment for disloyal conduct; (2) in extreme cases, as
retaliation for disloyal conduct elsewhere; (3) for the purpose of
quelling armed resistance (not as a punishment for resistance when
quelled); (4) in case of refusal of reasonable supplies requisitioned,
or of a reasonable money contribution in lieu of supplies. It would, I
conceive, be unlawful--(1) for the purpose of enforcing a fancy
contribution or ransom, such as we were told was exacted from Liverpool;
(2) by way of wanton injury to private property, such as was supposed to
have been caused in the Clyde and at Folkestone, and _a fortiori_ such
as would have resulted from the anticipated shelling during the
night-time of the south coast of the Isle of Wight.
2. Is it the case that international law is "all nonsense," and that
"when we are at war with an enemy he will do his best to injure us: he
will do so in what way he thinks proper, all treaties and all so-called
international law notwithstanding"? Are we, with Admiral Aube, to speak
of "cette monstrueuse association de mots: les droits de la guerre"? If
so, _cadit quæstio_, and a vast amount of labour has been wasted during
the last three centuries. I can only say that such a view of the future
is not in accordance with the teachings of the past. The body of
accepted usage, supplemented by special conventions, which is known as
international law, has, as a matter of fact, exercised, even in time of
war, a re staining influence on national conduct. This assertion might
be illustrated from the discussions which have arisen during recent wars
with reference to the Geneva Conventions to the treatment of the wounded
and the St. Petersburg declaration against the use of explosive bullets.
The binding obligation of these instruments, which would doubtless be
classed by your correspondent with the fleet among "old-fashioned
treaties, protocols, and other diplomatic documents," has never been
doubted, while each party has eagerly endeavoured to disprove alleged
infractions of them.
The naval manoeuvres have doubtless taught many lessons of practical
seamanship. They will have done good service of another sort if they
have brought to the attention of responsible statesmen such questions as
those with which I have attempted to deal. It is essential that the
country should know the precise extent of the risks to which our
seaboard towns will be exposed in time of war, and it is desirable that
our naval forces should be warned against any course of action, in their
conduct of mimic warfare, which could be cited against us, in case we
should ever have to complain of similar action on the part of a real
enemy.
Your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, August 18 (1888).
THE NAVAL MANOEUVRES
Sir,--In my first letter I called attention to certain operations of the
_Spider_ and her consorts which seemed to be inspired by no principle
beyond that of doing unlimited mischief to the enemy's seaboard. In a
second letter I endeavoured to distinguish between the mischief which
would and that which would not be regarded as permissible in civilised
warfare. The correspondence which has subsequently appeared in your
columns has made sufficiently clear the opposition between the view
which seems to find favour just now in naval circles and the principles
of international law, as I have attempted to define them. The question
between my critics and myself is, in effect, whether the mediæval or the
modern view as to the treatment of private property is to prevail.
According to the former, all such property is liable to be seized or
destroyed, in default of a "Brandschatz," or ransom. According to the
latter, it is inviolable, subject only to certain well-defined
exceptions, among which reasonable requisitions of supplies would be
recognised, while demands of money contributions, as such, would not be
recognised.
The evidence in favour of the modern view being what I have stated it to
be is, indeed, overwhelming; but I should like to call special attention
to the _Manuel de Droit International à l'Usage des Officiers de l'Armée
de Terre_, issued by the French Government, as going even further than
the Brussels Conference in the restrictions which it imposes upon the
levying of requisitions and contributions. The Duke of Wellington, who
used to be thought an authority in these matters, wrote in 1844, with
reference to a pamphlet in which the Prince de Joinville had advocated
depredations on the English coasts:--
"What but the inordinate desire of popularity could have
induced a man in his station to write and publish an
invitation and provocation to war, to be carried on in a
manner such as has been disclaimed by the civilised portions
of mankind?"
The naval historian, Mr. Younge, in commenting on the burning of Paita,
in Chili, as far back as 1871, for non-compliance with a demand for a
money contribution (ultimately reduced to a requisition of provisions
for the ships), speaks of it as "worthy only of the most lawless pirate
or buccaneer, ... as a singular proof of how completely the principles
of civilised warfare were conceived to be confined to Europe."
Such exceptional acts as the burning of Paita, or the bombardment of
Valparaiso, mentioned by Mr. Herries, will, of course, occur from time
to time. My position is that they are so far stigmatised as barbarous by
public opinion that their perpetration in civilised warfare may be
regarded as improbable; in other words, that they are forbidden by
international law.
It is a further question whether the rules of international law on this
point are to be changed or disregarded in future. Do we expect, and are
we desirous, that future wars shall be conducted in accordance with
buccaneering precedent, or with what has hitherto been the general
practice of the nineteenth century? Your naval correspondents incline to
revert to buccaneering and thus to the introduction into naval coast
operations of a rigour long unknown to the operations of military forces
on land; but they do so with a difference. Lord Charles Beresford
(writing early in the controversy) asserts the permissibility of
ransoming and destroying, without any qualifying expressions; while
Admiral de Horsey would apparently only ask "rich" towns for
contributions, insisting also that a contribution must be "reasonable,"
and expressly repudiating any claim to do "wanton injury to property of
poor communities, and still less to individuals." In the light of these
concessions, I venture to claim Admiral de Horsey's concurrence in my
condemnation of most of the doings mentioned in my first letter,
although on the whole he ranges himself on the side of the advocates of
what I maintain to be a change in the existing law of war. Whether or no
the existing law needs revision is a question for politicians and for
military and naval experts. It is within my province only to express a
hope that the contradiction between existing law and new military
necessities (if, indeed, such contradiction exists) will not be solved
by a repudiation of all law as "nonsense"; and, further, that, if a
change of law is to be effected, it will be done with due deliberation
and under a sense of responsibility. It should be remembered that
operations conducted with the apparent approval of the highest naval
authorities, and letters in _The Times_ from distinguished admirals, are
in truth the stuff that public opinion, and in particular that
department of public opinion known as "international law," is made of.
The ignorance, by the by, which certain of my critics have displayed of
the nature and claims of international law is not a little surprising.
Some seem to identify it with treaties; others with "Vattel." Several,
having become aware that it is not law of the kind which is enforced by
a policeman or a County Court bailiff, have hastened, much exhilarated,
to give the world the benefit of their discovery. Most of them are under
the impression that it has been concocted by "bookworms," "jurists,"
"professors," or other "theorists," instead of, as is the fact, mainly
by statesmen, diplomatists, prize courts, generals and admirals. This
is, however, a wide field, into which I must not stray. I have even
avoided the pleasant by-paths of disquisition on contraband,
privateering, and the Declaration of Paris generally, into which some of
your correspondents have courteously invited me. I fear we are as yet
far from having disposed of the comparatively simple question as to the
operations which may be properly undertaken by a naval squadron against
an undefended seaboard.
I am, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Llanfairfechan, August 27 (1888).
NAVAL BOMBARDMENTS OF UNFORTIFIED PLACES
Sir,--The protest reported to have been lodged by the Russian Government
against the bombardment by the Japanese fleet of a quarantine station on
the island of San-shan-tao, apart from questions of fact, as to which we
have as yet no reliable information, recalls attention to a question of
international law of no slight importance--viz. under what, if any,
circumstances it is permissible for a naval force to bombard an "open"
coast town.
In the first place, it may be hardly necessary to point out the
irrelevancy of the reference, alleged to have been made in the Russian
Note, to "Article 25 of The Hague Convention." The Convention and the
_Règlement_ annexed to it are, of course, exclusively applicable to "la
guerre sur terre." Not only, however, would any mention of a naval
bombardment have been out of place in that _Règlement_, but a proposal
to bring such action within the scope of its 25th Article, which
prohibits "the attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations, or
buildings which are not defended," was expressly negatived by the
Conference of The Hague. It became abundantly clear, during the
discussion of this proposal, that the only chance of an agreement being
arrived at was that any allusion to maritime warfare should be carefully
avoided. It was further ultimately admitted, even by the advocates of
the proposal, that the considerations applicable to bombardments by an
army and by a naval force respectively are not identical. It was, for
instance, urged that an army has means other than those which may alone
be available to a fleet for obtaining from an open town absolutely
needful supplies. The Hague Conference, therefore, left the matter where
it found it, recording, however, among its "pious wishes" (_voeux_)
one to the effect "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force should be
referred for examination to a future conference."
The topic is not a new one. You, Sir, allowed me to raise it in your
columns with reference to the naval manoeuvres of 1888, when a
controversy ensued which disclosed the existence of a considerable
amount of naval opinion in favour of practices which I ventured to think
in contravention of international law. It was also thoroughly debated in
1896 at the Venice meeting of the Institut de Droit International upon a
report drafted by myself, as chairman of a committee appointed a year
previously. This report lays down that the restrictions placed by
international law upon bombardments on land apply also to those effected
from the sea, except that such operations are lawful for a naval force
when undertaken with a view to (1) obtaining supplies of which it is in
need; (2) destroying munitions of war or warships which may be in a
port; (3) punishing, by way of reprisal, violations by the enemy of the
laws of war. Bombardments for the purpose of exacting a ransom or of
putting pressure upon the hostile Power by injury to peaceful
individuals or their property were to be unlawful. The views of the
committee were, in substance, adopted by the Institut, with the omission
only of the paragraph allowing bombardment by way of reprisals.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, April 2 (1904).
The "Hague Conference" and "Hague Convention" to which
reference was made in the last of these letters were, of
course, those of 1899.
For the action taken by the Institut de Droit International in
1895 and 1896, on the initiative of the present writer, see the
_Annuaire de l'Institut_, t. xiv p. 295, t. xv. pp. 145-151,
309, 317; and his _Studies in International Law_, pp. 106-111.
See also, at p. 104 of the same work, an opinion given by him
to the Chevalier Tindal as to the liability of The Hague to be
bombarded.
The later growth of opinion has been in accordance with the
views maintained by the writer of these letters, and with the
_Rapport_ drafted by him for the Institut. The Hague Conference
of 1899, though unable to discuss the subject, had registered a
_væu_ "that the proposal to regulate the question of the
bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force may
be referred for examination to a future Conference." See _Parl.
Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1889), pp. 139, 146, 162, 165, 258,
283. At the Conference of 1907 a Convention, No. ix., was
accordingly signed and generally ratified, notably by Germany
and Great Britain, Art. 1 of which prohibits "the bombardment
by naval forces of ports towns, villages, houses, or buildings
which are not defended," Germany, France, Great Britain and
Japan dissenting from the second paragraph of this article,
which explains that a place is not to be considered to be
defended merely because it is protected by submarine
contact-mines. Bombardment is, however, permitted, by Art. 2,
of places which are, in fact, military or naval bases, and, by
Arts. 3 and 4, of places which refuse to comply with reasonable
requisitions for food needed by the fleet, though not for
refusal of money contributions. The _Acte Final_ of the
Conference further registers a _væu_ that "the Powers should,
in all cases, apply, as far as possible, to war at sea the
principles of the Convention concerning the laws and customs of
war on land." (_Parl. Paper, Miscell._ No. 1 (1908), p. 30.)
This Convention, No. iv. of 1907, in Art. 25 of the _Règlement_
annexed to it, lays down that "the attack or bombardment, by
whatsoever means, of towns, villages, habitations, or buildings
which are not defended is prohibited."
The British Government had, in 1907, so far departed from the
Admiralty views of 1888 as to instruct their delegates to the
Conference of that year to the effect that "the Government
consider that the objection, on humanitarian grounds, to the
bombardment of unfortified towns is too strong to justify a
resort to that measure, even though it may be permissible under
the abstract doctrines of international law [?]. They wish it,
however, to be clearly understood that any general prohibition
of such practice must not be held to apply to such operations
as the bombardment of towns or places used as bases or
storehouses of naval or military equipment or supply, or ports
containing fighting ships, and that the landing of troops, or
anything partaking of the character of a military or naval
operation, is also not covered."
It is hardly necessary to chronicle the indignation aroused by
the raids upon undefended coast towns carried out by German
cruisers during the war of 1914, in violation of modern
International Law and notwithstanding the German ratification
of Convention No. ix. of 1907.
* * * * *