t 
 
REPRISALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 By 
 
 PAG JIN HO 
 
 A. B. Fuhtan University, 1920 
 A. B. TBe University of Washington, 1921 
 
 THESIS 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
 FOR THE DEGREE OF MABTER OF ARTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF ILLINOIS, 1922 
 
 URBANA, ILLINOIS 
 

 ■■ V T 
 
 1 J io Y^lBHavlUU 
 
 
 '<* 
 
 ‘ te 
 
 JOOH02 3TAUQAHO 3HT 
 
 - -'•'J ■: 
 
 
 . ► 
 
 ' 3 .,\ 
 
 ffc 
 
 
 Yf/ M3a’/.u fiaHAM.Hfls m:m 7 nm tah r aMaMMo:) 3 ^i YaaaaM i 
 
 ijL r« /OI«IVH3HU8 "" 
 
 
 
 aHJTiTvia 
 
 Ji 
 
 
 0*1 
 
 St 
 
 1 
 
 30M 8T/!3M3fn J0:-ia 3HT 3Q T«AS 8IHT 0XMJI'U*.J3 8A (i:*1TH3JDA 33 
 
 •( . . 
 
 V» »*• O 
 
 ^0 wl 
 
 30 33303 a 3 m — ,, 
 
 ,, si' im 
 
 Ul 1 MKft»tp(l k» fiOlH 
 
 'I*. ^ 
 
 
 ‘j‘iiJimmw 3 • 
 
 no 
 
 *noiib(titnKx3 (ttnrl 
 
 *ni f>vnu.'3tnpii »viii«bn»mrootrt3 |,w^ 
 
 ,1 
 
 *«,' 
 
 ?-? 3 s?ao^' 
 
 
 iN" .. « ^v. 
 
 «‘t»tw(|i m) xvf 9<nS'>9»'Kiis<ih mi4 
 
CONTEiifTS 
 
 CHAPTER I Page 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 A Brief Survey of the Historical 
 
 Development of Reprisals 11 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 The Value of Reprisals 1^7 
 
 chapter IV 
 
 The Justification of Reprisals 
 
 in Time of Peace S3 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 The Justification of Rex)ri3al3 
 
 in Time of War 40 
 
 Condlusion 75 
 
 Bibliography S2y 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/detaiis/reprisalsininterOOhopa 
 
1 
 
 REPRISALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Introduction 
 
 This thesis conta,ins five chapters . Chapter I is a.n intro- 
 ductory chapter in which the definitions of reprisals, the differ- 
 ence "between reprisals and retorsion and the classifications of 
 reprisa.ls will he discussed. In chapter II a brief survey of the 
 historice.1 development of reprisals will he given; and in chapter 
 III the value of reprisals will he studied. In the fourth chapter 
 the question of the justification of reprisals in time of peace 
 will he examined in detail. And in the last chapter we shall go 
 into a full discussion of the justification of reprisals in war 
 and shall sum up the whole subject in a conclusion. 
 
 A. The Definitions of Reprisals 
 
 That reprisals axe an interesting and important subject in 
 international law cannot be disputed. But as to its meaning, the 
 opinions of writers are so various that a careful exairiina-tion is 
 essential . 
 
 In the first place, reprisals, as a forcible measure employed 
 by states in time of peace, may be defined as the siezure, either 
 at sea or on land, of ships or other property of a foreign sta.te 
 or its subjects, for the purpose of imposing pressure on the second 
 state for the redress of a wrong being done by it or by its 
 subjects; or for the purpose of subjecting such property to compen- 
 

 
 h 
 
 
 r?.''.,4tf=r3;zii:vvjr 
 
 ■ > 
 
 'S 
 
 
 
 *•' • 
 
 
 'V 
 
 <4.*, :;t vJ;.;-l;^^iK,, ■-’ ,| 
 
 1 
 
 W#. .>. . '?■• ■'. 
 
 6-*a li doi4 ji '5^t<?J54p/:^oduui^' : 
 
 ■‘ ...V< . , . ■ •■ T . ''■ ., - r . 4 ■/. *■• -:;>> 
 
 ••;.:?1' an: r.4M t i.oi tL o 
 
 21. i:i 'O’^c ,.- u 
 
 • •''* K ^‘Z. \y 'I'^ •’ 
 
 i4 
 
 ■ ''i Lj »• i' j div*-! J^t/i i"? ^ 
 
 .;(?■ *3«iilt:0ffl v:t ;»'. .J'l't: ' . ./jt v • 
 
 k A » >A. . ^ ■< . . dK. ^ a.^ ^ . . _ . i aU - «' a . M A a .LaWi ■ JKrf i^k 
 
 di (io 
 
 u t. 
 
 ■ ■ „ .. ' .-J'K'i ,- ' ' . , ,' ’ .VS' .- '''T ■- C.’«V V i 
 
 ■ *’ ■' ' s: ' .-ii!., 
 
 
 r ■ 
 
 ' '■ ■ ■ ■ •■; ,„. J: , r -•- ? -f. .. ••/ -■■ 
 
 
 ! ‘ '<■ ■ .* 
 • pi':;iift& ,iidt ^ 
 
 \^i 
 
 ■ ■'•y-r/'-ii-’j - '•■ i< ^r7* s ' ' ' ' . ', ' ,'. '^‘;''S 'rM " 
 
 •V . w :-j;. A 
 
 4 . y* * j-:^4 
 
 *‘‘ ■ , '■ a- ;sir> : '.*■ ' V-' :^i’’j 
 
 
 
 
sat ion in value for the wrong done. 
 
 For such purposes, other forms of reprisals such as the 
 temporary occupation of a port, the seizure of custom duties or 
 
 r' 
 
 ej 
 
 the institution of a pacific blockade, ma.y also be taken. 
 
 But we must bear in mind that the things seized are held 
 subject to the termination of the controversy. If the question is 
 settled amicably, the ships or property seized are restored; and 
 sometimes, though not always, the state in whose hand the things 
 were retained, pays for the delay and damage that have resulted 
 from the seizure. On the other hand, if war is the only solution 
 of the dispute, the property seized is good as a prize. 
 
 Mr. Oppenheim’s definition of reprisals is in considerable 
 degree similar to that of Mr. Westla.ke though the wording of one 
 is different from that of the other, Mr. Oppenheim entertains the 
 view that, "Reprisal is the term applied to such injurious and 
 otherwise internationally illegal acts of one state against 
 another a.s are exceptionally permitted for the purpose of compel- 
 ling the latter to consent to a satisfactory settlement of a dif- 
 
 3 
 
 ference created by its own international delinquency." 
 
 In his International Public Law, Mr, Hannis Taylor rege.rds 
 reprisals as one kind of positive remedy for obteiining redress. He 
 says, "When one state injures another either directly or by injur- 
 ing or permitting an injury to a citizen of the other, and fails or 
 refuses to greut redress in the amicable methods, the offended 
 state may pursue one of several courses not necessarily involving 
 
 1 
 
 Westlake, International Law, Part II, 7 
 S 
 
 Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law, 344 
 3 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law, Volume 2, 34 
 

 fi-:. ’rt ■: : ;;^;^''f =;yw^ I 
 
 : t 
 
 r V. ' 
 
 'A 
 
 - ‘*^“**. ■ 
 
 ;■ ' V '. ., As'^ 
 
 ... :., » .• I i»- !.“!!«•?>.• •CiU’-'afej's ,eUya^i'JAiJ»- 
 
 -« •,.• sr. ; ') ■ •';<• '.. ,•?. 
 
 R f tt> iS#'. , ■ t4|iSP!l 
 
 I , V . ' ' ■*'; • '■ ^ ■ 'CW k'i:' .*w^ ' 
 
 J, . . .'A-.f iX %!*;, ,»%:‘<. ai’ihi^^f. -'O :.*S«oky|4f 
 
 ■»*,. "^. -‘iSo ‘'' >'■■ ■!>'V'’ ’'jv'l' \ ' V‘S»...SJ.f 
 
 n '■ 'l■.•^;, .,. ’ '■ ^ ■’ - V ,*‘ ^ ■'V'. 
 
 a>fc* «« ,. .4s&*':js?,^s;, ..- ’ J :. , y4-!f 
 
 . Aik I . 'I . .. 
 
 ' ■'''■'' 1 .^:v V ;• 
 
 
acknoYtTl edged war." According to his idea, such remedies may he 
 divided into negative and positive. By negative remedy, the of- 
 fended state usually expresses displeasure rather than exacting 
 redress. The severance of diplomatic or commercial relations, and 
 other expressions of national displeasure belong to this division. 
 By positive remedy, however, the offended state may threaten retali- 
 at ion, or assert force in such manner as to bring actual war into 
 existence. To this division belong embargoes and non-intercourse, 
 retorsion, reprisals, sequestrations and pacific blockades. Repri- 
 sal in this sense is nothing- more than a mode of putting; stress 
 
 upon an offending state which, though falling short of actual war, 
 
 5 
 
 is of a violent nature. 
 
 This view is more clearly presented by Mr. Holland. He says 
 
 that reprisals ordinarily signify a taking back of property of 
 
 which one has been wrongfully deprived, such as acts of pressure 
 
 put by one state upon another without any intention to bring about 
 
 6 
 
 a war. But it is capable of being taken as a challenge to fight. 
 
 Reprisals may also be used by one state as a means of retali- 
 ation against another state for the suspension of the operation 
 7 
 
 of treaties. In 1760 when Holland repudiated the treaty obliga- 
 tion, under which she promised to assist England during the time 
 of attack, the British government issued reprisals by suspending 
 all particular stipulations concerning the freedom of navigation 
 and commerce that had been included in several treaties made 
 
 4 
 
 Taylor, International Public Law. 431 
 
 5 
 
 Lawrence, The Principles of International Law , § 136 
 
 6 
 
 Foulke, International Law, Volume 2, 97, N.IO 
 7 
 
 Hall, International Law. (8th Edition), 360 
 
'* KSgsa^ts K- ' j^ S? i r^ -TTZ. " ' “' • - ' ■ - ---aI 
 
 
 
 "1 «► 
 
 i’ 
 
 
 
 i «gjs v‘ii^»»ji'^ 
 
 
 Ifii’vttXcK ^ cuw^-^^r;6*i; «»«; ^.ol-col I 
 
 ■ ■' - * ■ ' ■" ' * -V " ri- :>jw|| : 
 
 i* I , ¥0^ /-rWi -■ i V • • i ■ *•<><' * ' i5^'-i iv *! ix 'la ''9 ^ \ 
 
 r - .** '* i. \. a ^ ^£n ‘ *‘ '"”'* '* 
 
 
 t» ‘^t. ttt rt*’; vu|3: % r 1"' : ' att;> i r:» ^ t ’i^^^ir, ^ . 11 ' t fAn ^ 
 
 L ?nj -^, 4 iii.jVj'io . isv4»v.ii ■ 
 
 . B.‘j; ’. -». ,C -i.f 4* .']L^a.,JV..'t 
 
 ' l».ll 
 ' •'^'>'br’4t* X'Vil ' 
 
 * * ' ''* ’ ’»<• * j* ' ' ^ ‘ *<’ '* I In 
 
 I. 
 
 ' ■' , i 
 
 • ’ " ',**1^1: *: .0i hi ** r\tU^ 
 
 * I? • ^ ' ' ' *■*?;* ■<)(,.' V'V. : 
 
 -V- '**' '*‘ ,^ ■ ‘ ■■’ a' ■ . i 
 
 M ■ ' ' ' * ' \;. uf' ■ ?s ‘ ■♦'- ■ “'^.'’"r 'I 
 
 '" '-^ .vxuvV‘ I 
 
 'tf : dt . iSjL^nXO ttiXv ;8i,ite 
 
 * ' I 
 
 1 1 ?.\ 
 
 ■T 
 
 i>. 
 
 i *.- ■.? • . » 
 
 .'iM 
 
 (’4 •;' 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 » I' 
 
 *•» tv i J BM, fi' j. . . ■ - /4 PC 'W : 4- 
 '•• ' ; I ... , j 
 
 «^.r*-'-, . ;. '• V ^ i V,. V*rf-' 
 
 . .w>.r ,k.i<sU/-.'\v Jiii-nj- io -i k2' ^ 
 
 ' ■ :.5 ' * •' •- --■*-' • *' .' ,r» ■• ■ • ^,- -V 
 
 ' ., V- / •?•:’ 
 
 '■•' * ;V.'.7 
 
 ^ *.j*i. - ’ -:.u 1' .1 
 
 
 #-U- Ito -CC^lti. 
 
 - y‘ ., 
 
 
 ■.iU'iSp; '^431.' cX 
 
 . - V '5 "' . -■ >»■ ..." 
 
 
 *'||ia -3 ‘V ^0 r.; ai 4 # 4 $^ J> 
 
 Hia «X/;u4X ,41 X i W‘^A.^kAi#.W 
 
 .'^ > .. r --^ '•; • ''. -7 ■ .i 
 
 n^Xi;^r>Iv-u V »P4?o,^ia ] 
 
 
 
 ^ - 
 
 t' 
 
 
4 
 
 between these two countries, j 
 
 One authority in international law gives his view of reprisal ii 
 as action resorted to for the redress of injuries inflicted upon j 
 the state, in its collective capacity, or upon the right of indiv- j 
 iduals to whom the state gives protection in return for their al- ' 
 
 e 
 
 legiance. There are still other writers who hold that reprisals 
 
 consist in the recovering of what is our own by force. Either one 
 
 of the two measures may be adopted: by seizing an equivalent or | 
 
 negatively by detaining what belonges to the offending state againti 
 
 9 
 
 which the reprisals are issued. 
 
 Moreover, reprisals may also be defined as ”a certain kind 
 
 of an act, just like any other specific act, which is sometimes 
 
 lawful and sometimes unlawful, according to international law, or 
 
 perhaps more accurately, an act restrained by the international 
 
 factors of conduct within limits which will be exceeded only when 
 
 10 
 
 dictated by the self-interest of the state,” But when an inter- 
 national right has been violated, the offended state may a.dopt 
 
 measures of retaliation in form of reprisals in order to obtain 
 
 11 
 
 redress for that offence. 
 
 Again, Hr. Wildman interprets the right of reprisals in a 
 very peculiar way. He says that reprisals are the right of every 
 sovereign by which he may secure justice to himself or to his 
 subjects for any injury committed by any foreign prince or subject 
 in a denial of justice, and that the right consists in occupying 
 
 6 
 
 Hallsct, International Law, (4th Edition), 505 
 
 9 
 
 Woolsey, Interna tional Law, (6th Edition), 181 
 
 10 
 
 Foulke, Intennational Law, Volume II. ^551 
 vvilson. Internat ional Law . 231 
 

 
 , '.-'.V -r _ . r*. ... . - ._ . 
 
 
 
 
 
 I®’;'.. V A' 
 
 ■■' . * . ' ' ' '.’*■• r ^ \ / r^k , ' *. - •-' 
 
 s-i . . / , >>• ^ v^. d«Wu 
 
 ( ' ' '■ , ''•< ■^.’ '5" • • ' ■ - ■ v' ’V .. ^ . i!^ ‘}'^ , : u ;; uisfi 
 
 '-■ '■ • ^ ••' 'u*i' ’vi>->r 
 
 1 
 
 KVw'-..> ;.J , --■ .'I'l, -Vi*Qu 1. 
 
 ■ ' k/aij;u 
 
 -■ •■ r- v’ ,• • - i;'/ r-. • ... .' ■ . '1 ■,*vs .?. ■ &' 
 
 
 
 Uas'i;/:<tr3fev 
 
 :} >r.-. • «>.N' .,^ . . '. •■ ... ^ ^ ^ y. ;J 
 
 ~ . .• A VI . • 
 
 / 
 
 ^•'■^ W • i iV’/i Ji/i . f 4?« . •• '.‘t; 
 
 '' ' ‘.' ^^ .'^r, .V- • V - .vv' •" ^'!?'4*ir 
 
 i^. “*'''» I, * <t!r '*» "* ^ 'Vr^' •iji.w *•, 3'^ 
 
 - I*'^^sjf' ■ •■ ' '■ ' A-'' -'■'■*■ '•.«.'■ ^ *■'■», ^ ■ •'V;Jlll^' 
 
 • . ' j' K . "■ " . . _ •^'’''1^^ ' ■ •' ^ '^1 
 
 
 ' ■ ■ i. '■ --i-, • ;< • '-' ^4j • :a 3 
 
 ■-T * ■■■;* ■, v6|#^.„jfea6;^a;aife 
 
 *'".. ••■ • 5- ;'i , ■’ *' - ■ • '*• «'/!>. ;_ - ♦_ ,. a;-* 
 
 
 -'^ 'T* 
 
 
 i -’it.’ i wJ , 
 
5 
 
 any portion of the territory of the offending state, or the bodies 
 
 13 
 
 or goods of any of its subjects, until satisfaction is obtained. 
 
 Finally, reprisals furnish a rough means for an offended 
 
 state to obtain redress for injury of small importance after having 
 
 failed to make ainicable settlement. It also allows the placing of 
 
 stress upon a weak but obstinate state that commits international 
 13 
 
 delinquency . 
 
 B. The Difference between Reprisals and Retorsion 
 
 Before we seek to imake the distinction between reprisals and 
 retorsion, it would be adviceable to first find out the meaning of 
 retorsion. 
 
 In general, retorsion is an action taken by a state for the 
 
 purpose of demanding compensation for some damage suffered through 
 
 the action of another state or for the puropse of deterrinir the 
 
 14 
 
 latter from continuing the action complained of. It is also an act 
 
 of one state against another state that is acting in an unfriendly, 
 
 though peaceful manner, by adopting a similar conduct to that 
 15 
 
 complained of, or, to state more clearly, it is an amicable retali- 
 ation by means of which a same line of conduct being pursued by one 
 state may be followed by another state for the sake of redress. 
 
 It is usually resorted to for the adjustment of discrimin- 
 atory legislation or administrative action, such as hostil tariff, 
 exclusion or unfair treatment of foreigners of a particular 
 
 IS 
 
 Foulke, Internat ional Law, Volume II, 96, Notes 
 
 Hershey, Essentials of International Public Law. 344 
 
 14 
 
 Westlake, International Law. 6 
 
 15 
 
 Lawrence, The Principle s of Intern a tion al Law,# 136 
 
• .'T. 
 
 
 - ■ v,»-i ■ 
 
 *■ ? "V 
 
 <' tv ■ I • 
 
 '' ‘•vf 
 
 
 ^ 40£vx:rt'*zM‘^ 
 
 ftfs- iiy'Lo’x r 
 
 • l4t* *: ■; ► 1 X- S 1 lo^trs Z X X«£t l 1 C ^ y i ,‘. •: 0 'i . fci < b 1 1 <S;i4t tfO O # ^ j 
 
 '. '■ \-t ■ i* '■ • I' ‘ 'JB"’ .v*''"' T'-' ' n 
 
 ‘Iw tac ^ Ci'> 
 
 ? *■ “'* ■ *i ' > yjj "^ ■ I ^ 
 
 . 1“ K»i<rT*4oJ'’<^.‘ ■ '• »;»i> rfflAf.'acfo »UflS;;)US‘ i iJOi^ 'i<>»'lf«>j 
 
 < ^ 
 
 
 li a 
 
 , i 
 
 >\ 
 
 u. 
 
 
 
 
 r.Q:e7p5-^. zx<xtH a^’y)s!;^*^^ 
 
 ^ ■••■?, • ^ 7*A '■n i '* ■ ■ «f '■ 
 
 m 1[- 
 
 f» 
 
 .AT,: r*v-Mx'^^>x’ ;! t4A*»?6cf /io Jf-tc.rU y <i tt tirf^ fi5U*a of ,*>>&« inot%^ 
 
 ! > 
 
 4|B tr'yti ^t>ti fck'j:! 
 
 v^* 
 
 
 
 •4 -i 
 
 zi\ -* fX''lao 
 
 :«8: 
 
 ■• w^. :v:c.j?w> iw e4i ac»' x;;j*il/oaAW 
 
 vKf?'' ■■•vK.;-’ .■'/ • ^/V ■ ■ ,.' ' .? 
 
 caIUjli fcf«jcUt Xita,;.v:. iiyi :o» 
 
 * « .. 
 
 .« 
 
 .It :',« 
 
 ' Liaoii 
 X , 
 
 ■ ,.'fcr>’'i. - ’’• : ■ ■ 'i'v • - , - • *fc ..' Y- ■ ^-J-«i'. ■'’*" - . ■■ m'^,’ %'■. 
 
 -.;^*V"'- .i ••»• V ■ ••*•■ «* , '’ " ■ 3.V- V’’ ^ 
 
 rf^i i^X-«C'l5ri» iri> ei 4^, i^Qx ■oj,,,*io-VVc 
 
 -. ■■'V . • .' .•-■-V.’..., Ulf 
 
 1 ■• 
 
 ito t’tf -lOiJlaOQ 46 ' lo 
 
 .•\ . ‘fV. -U •>?• V v\ 
 
 . %. w -«.. j- ..A ..^*r : vg’WIBf/t * *Ci* 
 
 
 
 -fti- ioa. 
 
 , ■ , . '■■■ ' !!S ■*■ 
 
 ,.t -‘•J 
 
 f'* XXIff'-'T £/• rtoyb 
 . -Z' . - 
 
 ■.V . .■•• 4 ,. •• <F‘ ‘,1iJi ‘ 
 
 ■ 'r .a ' ■'■^ ■' ■•. ,i 
 
 6 , 00 : xp.'i. 5t^ X j4"4 i XdXoXiA i<y i 
 
 * U- ^ •, -.>r.' ■ ,ev^vi . <?•..'» . 
 
 '/■...* ’ .. • ..' -Y-. T. - - * •" ' 
 
 m 
 
 P 
 
 waJo«;K«e ^n s^aiia^i'I^kii 
 
 ' • V . ■ ^ T " ’ -jiK -r* 
 
 1: 
 
 '•»- *»■ ^ •' 
 n *■ ■ •'’■ / SiL -|r -Afc' 
 
nationality, or denial of civil rights to aliens. 
 
 Thus, 30 far as aim or purpose is concerned, reprisals and 
 
 retorsion are practically the same. Both of them are means of 
 
 retaliation. The only difference oetween them is to he found in 
 
 the nature of the act. A reprisal may he confined to the seizure 
 
 of ships or other property belonging to the offending state or to 
 
 her citizen within or without the jurisdiction; while, on the 
 
 other hand, "a retorsion may he confined to act within the juris- 
 17 
 
 diction." In other words, the application of reprisals may he 
 
 18 
 
 confined to legal while that of retorsion to political difference. 
 
 Reprisals and retorsion are further distinguished hy Mr. 
 Oppenheim who says, "Whereas retorsion consists in retaliation of 
 discourteous, unfriendly, unfair, and inequitable acts hy acts of 
 the saine or the similar kinds, and has nothing to do with inter- 
 national delinquencies, reprisals are otherwise illegal acts 
 performed hy a state for the purpose of obtaining justice for an 
 
 19 
 
 international delinquency hy taking the law into its own hands." 
 
 Reprisals also differ from retorsion both in kind and in 
 
 degree. Retorsion is resorted to when a state has been deprived of 
 
 imperfect rights, or when the rules of comity have been violated. 
 
 Reprisals are resorted to when perfect rights have been denied or 
 
 20 
 
 when justice has been refused. 
 
 Again, Mr. Moore, the great American jurist and writer of 
 international law, has made a sharp distinction between reprisals 
 
 ^Hershey, Essentials o_f Internatio nal Public Law . § 321 
 Foulke, International Law, Volume II, 110 
 
 X w 
 
 ^Foulke, Interna tional Law , Volume II, 110, N.4 
 
 Oppenheim, Intern ational Law, Volume I,§ 33 
 20 
 
 George B. Davis, Element of I nt e m at i onal Law . 265 
 
■IS 1,. 
 
 
 ? » - 
 
 '^ A 5 ‘ i» 
 
 .*i't 0 
 
 ts^i% 
 
 ‘x;jtVio .10 ' — 'i 
 
 'jpfjfcJtfttk .J^:^ jLl X< *■ il'-i:; - 
 
 
 !u nc d^iv’ ,v># 'x^^4^b xc^ <iqi/fc ' 
 
 *, 'S,'^ V '« • * ’ 'V > , J X"*’ 
 
 A ?' «— ^ ' * ■’ ^ SK/kV ..' )f 
 
 ■j "- i %fi r ' ■•■' ■ _•■'■' ^ 5 |i' 
 
 nai.i-fe^ix.- : it f^i 
 
 1, 
 
 
 ^:#;cu: i^\fiXll tti*zt>i^o :>\/t t uix, \«5»Uiyaw>.;3iXofc 
 
 T»' ■^'.' 5= ’ • ^-■>^‘ ■■/• ■ ? 
 
 to i^y.p,u hp.^ 
 
 J 
 
 ■' -e?*© .*, wiv a, 11 '^;p, ^ 
 
 Tltj.i,- ‘ ' ' . ' *./ • . ' ‘ , '*;^'f.'^'''v »♦*.' '*; i* '.'y *'.7 ^ 
 
 r.i i.ojET ijXJp Mi 4i.tlii' 9,iii4S*viJ&raA'5$S - 
 
 
 
 •^ - ’ ■ vX-.. ' 
 
 i©ti u^if o: 
 
 .7;-Srtf.tX0lV t - vxit-': vX- V, I'M 'x.O ,^61 iff Iz 
 
 :y,. »‘-r: ■ ‘ -" ' : ' •■' ^ -■'•■■'.'■ ’ ' '/'* ■■" 
 
 , TO xX^Irt&s,' n?v©\i ii¥4j^ 4j/ :i 
 
 ' . 7 .% ■ - Ofi 't-'.- '-•*'. '71. . 
 
 •> ‘ ..• r . '.Str, .Y‘ , -*, 
 
 (, , 4 - 
 
 s: ■ \ ■•- ■ «■'__ 9 r 
 
 4llilU(, -TWIT'® :> V'— 
 
 ^ p , "' ." ' ■ .-J yj : \ 
 
 hli^si^yQ ^ «<u! ' ^ 
 
 .\i ' ' - r,-'^ *•■- ,w. «., - -. j- ‘ 
 
 ■ ivt 
 
 
 .• ■■ •'■«'■»*? : -iiSri 
 
 «i* .-BiA 
 
 raas2:i=srr:rs^ :^.^ate-s;ga T:^^ -i ‘ V J a/ifl 
 
7 
 
 and retorsion. He holds that 'retorsion' is retaliation in kind, 
 
 while 'reprisals' consist in seizing the goods of the subjects of 
 
 21 
 
 a state as compensation for the injury received. 
 
 C. The Classification of Reprisals 
 
 Reprisals have been classified, according to their origin, by 
 Kluber, Wheaton and Phillimore into negative and positive. They 
 are negative reprisals when they are applied to the case of a 
 refusal of a right. They are positive reprisals, when they are 
 applied to the case of an injury. The same classification has been 
 made based upon their character by Field and Oppenheim. They say 
 that a negative reprisal consists in the refusal to perform such 
 acts as are obligatory under ordinary circumstances. To refuse 
 the fulfilment of treaty obligations and the non-payment of debts 
 are examples. While a positive reprisal according to their opini- 
 ons consists in the seizure or detention of persons or property 
 
 23 
 
 which involves an international delinquency. 
 
 In ordinary language, we may say that a negative rer)risal 
 consists in withholding soxnething which the state is legally 
 obliged to give, and that a positive reprisal in the seizing of 
 something which legally belongs to the other state or Its subjects. 
 Some writers use active and passive instead of positive and 
 negative without changing the meaning and character. 
 
 However great is the contradiction between these two classes, 
 the same rules are applied to both of them, that is, neither one 
 
 21 
 
 Moore, International Law Di.<?e3t, Volume VII, 119 
 22 ^ 
 
 Taylor, International Publ ic Law . 435,436 and Oppenheim, Inter- 
 national ^Law . Volume II, 39 
 

 ‘••>'v V .''■' V - ' 't' 
 
 > , .} ,-•. ... . !-. • ' ■■ . ’’ *. ..;■... ‘‘Zb' d"- •»;•.■ ,..^ • 
 
 . ' *.<• .h” , • •• "■■ ■ ■ 
 
 ... •, -: 4 - • .: . ..„i, • W, \--4 y- 
 
 4 :-^ 
 
 *' V ' ^ 
 
 V ; 
 
 'ffr* •'’'■A 
 
 or . i'-l 
 
 lii t •*, “ ' '^. > 1 ^ 
 
 V? ■■•ii - -V ■ sat^y =.V,^ :o.. 
 
 ■ • ' .H: .- ' 
 
 ^ ' f ‘ r ' '• •* --''‘''.*■■*1 7 »" 1 . 
 
 r.. . .i *:«<o - S^nir^E; rtti, 
 
 ^ 1 V'ii& t-.# - - j 5 j« !B’'ij^''j(.>T'i as ^ 
 
 , *■•/. ’ - ‘ ' ,' •. , >v B-.. , , £■•. ,^* 
 
 /?!£ tvfSI, Tw^i^r » : wsjMI 
 
 < -, ), *^*-'. ' ■ . : ^ _ j. * 1 ^' ' '■ /_ Ff yi ; ^ 1 '. 
 
 V- • ■. ''■■' v’ ■**. ■’*“' •'■ ►'■'■ ?■•*' '^-’-^.C- 
 
 Tri*. •t.V. :*" . -tB£ixr^. 7 ^* 
 
 ‘ ^ r . '(('•“^*1 ' B 
 
 r' 71 -. U-flK ‘‘I e;.« 4 i*ij(UT :£0 .rt 1 
 
 f ,. y ' ' 7 -^fl* *+'7 \'v‘. ' -. ‘■^f " 
 
 ■■'^\ . * >- ■ . -. ■ «i> *••■'. '^ • J* 
 
 /. ' ' , 7 } », jV ‘ yj. 
 
 '#^.7 7iCw ‘X'7 :.c .'^r.^cfei; 7 0' ‘HiJiioft al' otf&feitOOT-Wo i 
 
 -.' ' ' '‘UyitH'fiL tftaoi^xa’^ 9 tniVva§/^v'XdWX® 
 
 w: ’ ’ Vh ■ ''-J ' ' ^ ^ * 
 
 fvx.:^*.^ 4 -a I. tm ^ Y’siyitixd 
 
 ‘s' ■ ■ -'' .., , .'^■/■ 4 t ^ ■"' .VS ,V^'*'> r^i.. f.,.,.. • 
 
 Yt,\- . . ; 'y^'i'. 4 jfc‘ y . c dvv£ 7 ik*ts<( /: 
 
 '" ' ‘' ' '■ - 
 
 .7^.1 '.r .,:-n V^t| >0 0;f. L ' 
 
 XJ\ 7 lfif'i’.S 0 v trtsflpl ortitUM^ i^a* t\<t 4 xut CAi^-,*^f..‘i 
 
 , 5 . • ^ ^ ^ ■ 
 
 .■:.^inll iy>Ac^-i^jk ;^r.ifti*<i« 
 
 - ^ -- • 
 x.'fc 4 >?i (pMfi'ii ai 4 i’;a«J nal:}gtta*iZiXf^i ' 
 
 
 ^ ^ r* £y 
 
 -iMj .f^t ivtjif CS/- t^lX CC|<^ JbS»I:pT '’^A£^sfi!'P 
 
 ■ " 77 ,„ 
 
 rf«./ . ■ A i V “• M »• r-/ is^ ^ _ ktt*r r‘M «.».^ . i f .fc ^ ^ LmE# ' - . 
 
 j;i£££l ,.ji,t69fti5*i- 'bit?. •<■?■>,;§?•♦ . , c!t:a!m :>>ac t r..a-ji rajU . i&;Siii^: 
 
 ■"^' ■ ^‘ ?•■ '■?£ .irlaamxaar. «.»?.■} j-.^.a.-. tlji^jB^ '■ 'X- 
 
s 
 
 nor the other would be resorted to until there is a just cause, 
 
 S3 
 
 nor until all milder means for settlement have proved ineffective. 
 
 Reprisals are also classified into private and public. 
 
 Private reprisal is the right of individuals authorized by their 
 
 state by Letters of Marque to pass the boundaries of another state 
 
 in redress for injury. Privateering is the example of such a class ; 
 
 although treated by England as piracy. Public reprisal is an act 
 
 of the state ''through its own agents, on its own waters, on the 
 
 high seas, or on foreign soil, to enforce satisfaction of claims 
 
 34 
 
 out of the goods of another country," 
 
 Reprisals have been further classified into special and 
 
 general. Special reprisals are measures of retaliation "frequently 
 
 resorted to in the Middle Age, and sometimes in the later period, 
 
 for the indemnification of private individuals for injuries and 
 
 35 
 
 loses inflicted on them by subjects of other nations," Letters of 
 
 t 
 
 Marque were issued in such cases by sovereign to his peoples who 
 received the injuries. They were authorized by such a license to 
 set out and capture vessels and cargoes of the offending nationalit;i 
 Even after such private warfare was regarded as an outrageous and 
 unworthy action, a state occasionally sent out war vessels with | 
 instructions to capture as many private vessels of the offending 
 state as they could for compensating the losses of her people. 
 
 Thus Oliver Cromwell made a demand on Cardinal Mazarin, during the 
 minority of Louis XIV» for indemnity to a Quaker, whose vessels 
 had been seized and confiscated, without reason, off the coast of 
 
 83 
 
 Halleck, Intern ational Law and Law of War, 141 
 
 34 ” 
 
 Taylor, International Public Law. 441 
 
 35 ^ 
 
 Lawrence, Princinles of International Law, 335 
 

 
 * i 
 
 ;r. 
 
 _ ,’^'V 
 
 Till 
 
 ■' ■ r% 
 
 t - , * 't" k ^ 1 ^ ^ L f ^ ^ 
 
 ^ ■ -V •‘^'; , :. '5 yM^ 
 
 li. ... '■ v;;;r>Mr u; ‘I'v'fv-li . »-V/d' iftt^J^Sr' ^ ^ iJiiav.JiW- ve-u 
 
 |j . f ' i\ h . - 1 T,t ax , 0 £ ' vxn ^ 
 
 t. T ^ r ., ’ ^ ^ 
 
 <.. L ' '4'JW^'iv 10 Mi Xji*i;i(Xf:. ; *1 
 
 Fi,i-f 4 '^1'*^: ^>a' . .' ■ i^r; OT 
 
 *i'r^ 4. -i .w'# '. .. ^ .^' >• ■- . •♦ e\ I vi'i« . \:t'4.i(i i-3^1 , fc fe^t>'iy, t4 '.’ 
 
 i;n0>j ^03L 
 
 rc»4- A. 
 
 to: at 1 *t‘i .’.o , '. :^a0sJ*;cno e»f.t la 
 
 M’ -■ •’ '» *' £*[ ■ 
 
 a* . .t^E sStcA4« cr^tetoi 
 
 lb ^ I . ^ ..^ ' 4 e''< , ■ -’* ‘ * . ^ , ', *. p:-^ I 
 
 K MiL. ^ a* A. 4i. ^ Ik 1.^ . ^ ^ . llL‘»> fli» * 
 
 • Ac,0;fcnT lo" ffVO: 
 
 ■’"%'' A..r.' 
 
 , -,j V . - w. ? ^ ^ r< ' "r > 
 
 4 r . i '- .>^ - Ml4r: t ^ i > t K# if i ;-. *» rr i ‘s tft a . i0dK^lt > fr it 
 
 Vv ; • ,'’■* ' ^ , ' : ■ ‘. ,,>'.‘‘t;..,V?'‘ •;. ■■ 
 
 'i ,- ‘ •. *■ ■» ‘ I- .-• «v*< % ' 4 -». .■ I?',, 
 
 4u^*4eK^.t0t*.,i ^^4X2 „;»*A trlJ '4i. ut ' 
 
 '■ '■''' ••■ -1^ ■•, ■ '. '.:v'\';^».j ,' ■■ v; ' : 7 ;> ^ 
 
 v.rf 4£'-i-3Uj;.-.i f^fi■iq lo lo*- ■ 
 
 ^ i if 4',' -t. ^ i j& 0 0 ^ yy 
 
 ■5iU ,«?>/-' /,r>^;t^sx *4W , ij>>' 
 
 '■' ,. : ’ ^ ' ' V . ,, ■',’' ■>' -V ■ '.jr ■ 
 
 'X'-J' ;k.V ' ^ ^ 
 
 ;■,-. . ^'^ ■ ,t, ‘•‘""'''ife "• ■;• 
 
 i* ‘.,. * - ,,.j. . . V -_¥.S . . . -■,^PjS« . \ 
 
 "'* .' ’ .'•*." •' ’’ ■ ^ ■ 1 -.-f.**:- .;'.p i 
 
 • ’ " *' ' , '''', '** < “ ■ ‘ ' t' '•'Wi''^ ’ *' 
 
 ‘ ^ " ^•« V ^ ^’’ , * '«','■ ..■*•' ■^■'1 ' ■’,; ■■■ 'T/IIKIl ' ' 
 
France. Having got no reply from France within the period of three 
 
 days being specified in the demand, Cromwell sent out two ships-of- 
 
 war to make prize of French vessels in the English channel. The 
 
 vessels were captured and sold. The Quaker was compensated out of 
 
 the proceeds of the sale of the prize, and the residue was handed 
 
 over to the French Ambassador in London. 
 
 In the case of special reprisals, immediate confiscation is 
 
 more frequently resorted to, though the permission is limited to 
 
 38 
 
 particular persons, places and things. But, however, if the prince 
 
 on the other side considered the demand to be unsound, or the 
 
 compensation obtained to be excessive, he was justified to issue 
 
 37 
 
 letters of Contre-Marque . 
 
 As the result of the development of the modern sense of stats 
 
 responsibility, and of the increase of power of government, special 
 
 reprisals have fallen into disuse. The wronged individual will 
 
 now be told by his state that she would bear the responsibility 
 
 in obtaining the redress for him, from the country to which the 
 
 offender owes his allegiance. 
 
 On the other hand, reprisals are general when one stats 
 
 grants to its subject a general permission to seize the goods, or 
 
 persons of the offending state on the open sea or without the 
 
 38 
 
 jurisdiction of that state. 
 
 General reprisals have also been held as acts of forcible 
 character taking place when a state that feels itself aggrieved 
 
 36 
 
 Moore, International Law Digest . Volume VII, 120 
 27 
 
 Westlake, International Law. Part II. 9 
 26 
 
 Hal leek. Interna tional Law and Law of War . 140 
 

 
 
 i-,'-^v\ ■>. 1' ■’ *' *" ' ''ji' it \f} *' I 
 
 '►pr; J^xj ^ 
 
 -'•■'■ • /•_ ..' .V ^'' . ■ .' L ' ‘ri 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 T '...atti,'/ rU^fatU ^6fti .ri 34 usi:;q^8?^ e.r i/w 
 
 ^;,‘:V^ -' V . ; iv • : 'J?-. ’• ■•*-•; /•• ■ ’.;!n fi: 
 
 
 H 
 
 jf,^w . ^p.t/iili . !i 'sjj- ;cjtf -^taiisa' d4 J »i^o 9 h.' 
 
 « I - -r . 4i __ *- 
 
 '.d . -.'JbxiOil si 
 
 ,i«/i.ulx ji> i4Sic:^i- W*^r*cO.' ^ 
 
 ■ * . ' . •? '.1 'A • * ' ^ - ^ 
 
 * -• ■ ' ^ ..1^-, ,^, tfi, - 
 
 oi ,i;i;5 J,Y.ir i:t wf^- ,o.t 
 
 ^ ■ ; , y , "■ '.i;.o'&' • •.^; .^. • >,.’- t -r'*' 
 
 . ’ ■ \‘ fa 
 
 
 «w: 
 
 jl}l 
 
 ♦ 1 '. ■ * t* • 1 ’ fc ■ , 
 
 * -ri -* • ; -,VS>rf - \ ',- 
 
 fjpiiiCAi; . (*s - .. i-:‘-’i%v»r/e^4»c( o# 
 
 - - .. -• ^ ‘a 
 
 i’ •- , exj^p*!^ -»x.^aQ'P - 
 
 '’■*"■/ ’ _ ’ ’ ^' ■'fe'" ; ># * 
 
 .-. ■: :.> s-cis£4 'ii^, ;4 ».a. tc eit^- »A 
 
 .-:a ■.! ■•'•■,•' , -V..,. ■ Jr >.■*■; V I •^:,. 
 
 ^‘:t;.C-,'*- , inr i:'i«v;v;;.tit-itt'.i; », '40. sia^-^xo-ii ^(u^t lo - 
 
 - '■ tt~Tt-'. ’*% Of X .tvCTf Ub Wri/ n'i^it^^% tiw$ 
 
 I *■ ‘'V '."■''' . ••- - ' ■ ‘ ■''' ■= jn '' i '■"' ■vrj.F^’ .i:--S, 
 
 ■*■ . •.- - ‘ .' -r jKi i '■ ‘ v'rJdT^’ i '*T ff. ,i{ 
 
 ^iiJHuiS4i^».px tL^ U-41J ^tMi 
 
 i‘ ' . '''H ••.••' *• ■'■'' .■ ",'•„ , ‘ ■'•*■• "'i A-^' ' 
 
 ■ tij» tu- H-t/i . ^ iQt 
 
 ■• I- 
 
 
 t 
 
 • t-f r '£|ff^ev-.o, 
 
 *f-' -- -tm^iisi tm-. 
 
 r Mt 4.^“eau;^ s'i^i • ,istu»n i j>0 ^.4F^' • ^ 
 
 "%•-.. '■ • '.* r r ••' .*' * r^-#s’-‘‘: 'f* ■•■•«• ^ " 
 
 '•■ ' ^i-- -■■■r ',i- ,• ■■■,-' ■', , ;*/^> ® 
 
 " '"■ •■ ■ "" 
 
 
 J? 
 
 la C9-4 
 
 I 
 
 fcfl'iir;.! 1g < % :a UiOeo ,V • 
 
 .„,; v'.,.' , . J ■> • •' ' .• ' ^T?Y»'4Vi >k.jB 
 
 I » , •:■ *' 
 
 \ 
 
 li*" 
 
 <r ' 
 
 i-J :•'• ... 
 
 W «M ^ *«; ^ «Bf Mf'' »• *• 
 
 3P •'•'’i^ 
 
 Cii* ,i..- a»i/ictf ; :>'tj;.iC WJ ' 
 
 fy; *,spM g wr t=gcy^'xgi!<i^^ '.r-.t-. 
 
 « a . 
 
 
10 
 
 S9 
 
 performs warlike operations without an intention to make war. 
 
 They consist in seizing or destroying property, holding territory, 
 or capturing vessels of the offending state. It remains a reprisal 
 in international law, until a declaration of war by the state that 
 suffers these things. The hostile act of France against China, in 
 1884 and 1885, is the conspicuous example. The French government 
 deemed itself aggrieved by finding bands of Chinese among the 
 soldiers of Tonquin which it was trying to suppress, but it did not 
 wish to wage regular war with China. A policy, of what had been 
 described by the French Minister, Mr, Jules Terry as one of intel- 
 ligent destruction, was adopted. A French fleet was ordered to 
 bombard the arsenal of Too-Chow and to take possession of certain 
 places on the Chinese Island Tai-Wan or Formosa. But negotiations 
 were not interrupted, diplomatic ministers were not withdrawn, and 
 an actual war was not in existence between the two countries. It 
 is evident therefore that reprisals, like any other act of force 
 applied against another state, do not mean or, indeed, need not 
 necessarily result in war. Sometimes, however, the meaning may be 
 changed; as when for example Great Britain applied "general repri- 
 sals" in recent days, authorizing the British fleet to seize in 
 
 30 
 
 time of war all enemy ships and goods. 
 
 S9 
 
 Lawrence, Principle of International Law. 336 
 30 
 
 Oppenheim, Int er nat i onal Law . Volume II, 37 
 

 nc i ^ . 4 . 4 ? 3 i^wie 4 %v --t* 
 
 ■'^V '"' j 'i' 'TJt'J 
 
 , \ . i :w;t , .(Ci"; € ^*<‘’3q i\l\<^ ^^61^ •iix HilJti tT>E' ,l^Av>o;.^«^cn: 
 
 : * •*' fV ’•. . • *' • '•■i* ■ . ■ • ,. . . ■■/ nji ; * .Ti 
 
 ^ihV: * *. ;. Xv htt^kki^if \ 
 
 ■ , ■' ..^' V ; -'v- ./ :::^i 
 
 'kj. 
 
 It4d‘*'i,v.yc ftif? ^ lyr- ;iv* x' U «nij\Wl uiol^atb^i [ 
 
 U t •. ii i » V^i ia W *lWl 
 
 ’j ^ 
 
 t'«<T ,; . l U^U-Lt ,'^aoo »1 .5Sbl iwJA 
 
 
 ?‘m f 
 
 
 ^’'r;.V'i*?£> %o , liKo'^itVCaii : ‘ tox^ "Mi'iv- 
 
 . . • .- - 
 
 Ki !’lx’J '3%« O si^ . /. lO A / - i . ? <; <i 
 
 ■V ' . 4 ; - ; J ' i . N 
 
 ■: '■' ' • \’.‘ ■ ' .. ' ■ •'•'•,% 
 
 tox- "Mi' iv-oot 'lo 'X^xJ.a^’i* afli: 
 
 
 
 ^ •'£ V*' . ' ■ ‘ {ff "i V j 
 
 'dxTtf ,^o^^gi^o-/ 4 '<x 1 
 
 «oxi •:■ ■' .< ill f ; /; i 4 . '’i- x > . -iu* ; »i lo ^^■''tctJt’sao'iirt 
 
 r ’l^ OJi^f .<■ ♦ ‘ S<I fJ i ■'%' 
 
 ■ \. ; '•’.♦J • * •.,/' .:!■.< v.;^*vMv-/)€ 
 
 -■■• .«*? rio^Jdxf^ 
 
 ' 'i' '‘ ■'''~ ,’ ‘it lf J 
 
 •^,V '^! /’i' -•- 
 
 ■^'H' ■ •■' ii, V , ' ■ .' ■' ■" ■ -' ' - ^ ;^fi 
 
 ^‘Q<: a twt»:4ih | 
 
 •» :-li 
 
 ■A ^ 
 
 tfjr 
 
 ‘ <.*•' 
 
 ’ t’/ i 
 
 ‘^rtia-te.r . f.,i^ ,i:‘.v 4 ^«(c.‘ . ^v t.?iox^nc^ 4I' } ' 
 
 r'x ./’ xi K ,-;i,.'alrXivl •^#© 1 ^’ axi.i ^ 
 
 i*« ^ 
 
 iiS . 
 
 . li'. ■ 
 
 ik ; * 1. I 
 
 T 
 
 *-;, ‘ .. i$u.- ittJ^t.JU j^tiAfkit Um. 
 
 ■■‘ t. ■?',;% 
 
 •■•'■•fl -'w;. 
 
 :^».V,;\^/>«.. C#'i 
 
 h' f'l 
 
 '^sr -*i 2 
 
 
 ■V '/■J'' 
 
 
 ' !ii/r’ y« 
 
 
 - »H ,f»Jr •> ^ 
 
 
 
 
 •' •' ^■ 
 
 
 •-.*UU. iXi jt£ 
 
 i^' ' 
 
 •r *• ’ ' l *.5 
 
 A., ?'.. I,.'’ 
 
 9 aE: 9 imi 
 
 
 
1 / 
 
 chapter II 
 
 A Brief Development of the Historical 
 Development of Reprisals 
 
 Having understood the meaning, characteristic and classifi- 
 cation of reprisals, we proceed now to make a brief account of its 
 historical development. 
 
 In ancient Greece, before the declaration of war and after 
 
 the denial of ;justice, the Greek states would grant licenses to 
 
 their citizens to plunder the offending state on land and sea. 
 called . 1 
 
 Another custom, ^calle^d Androlepsia. Androlepsia, which means 
 
 "seizure of men”, was a special form of reprisal, or retaliation 
 
 8 
 
 applied in a drastic manner. If an Athenian was unjustly put to 
 death in a foreign country, and if the government by whose subject, 
 or in whose territory the crime was committed, set the murderer 
 free and also refused to extradize him to Athens, then the relatives 
 of the victim were authorized by the Athenian law to seize three 
 citizens of the offending state and to hold them as hostages. They 
 could not enjoy freedom until restitution was made, or the murderer 
 surrendered. Even after they were relieved, their possessions 
 would not be exempted from confiscation. It appears that only thos^ 
 of not more distant degree of relationship than that of the second 
 
 Woolsey, Internati onal Law . 133 
 
 Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece 
 ^nd Rom^, 349; and Oppenheim, International Law, Volume fl , 
 37 
 
yU -'-V : >> V' 
 
 S - 
 
 'i’i #A^-4l-r.r6V#C 'it. IT'-' k 
 
 • • I J' ■ -til ■- . ,’_ 4 fV — 1 
 
 
 T'.’ 
 
 r 
 
 { 
 
 . 
 
 
 ‘V 
 
 
 ur/^T- 
 
 I* JS 
 
 . Jf > * 
 
 pztiL^pnt 
 
 ? *" '■ V 4 ‘i- - .. ’ - -V -. ,■ I 
 
 ! ' - ' -■ ■ ''fr'" • 
 
 fr. %o .>bi «ioV*c» 
 
 uu/v;- liMf* 
 
 ii4*' ii:;- fli. . ik iw^ 3el>flEfX‘q' 
 
 ■- *'v^- .■ ■ ■ ' I, ' <' H 
 
 “tM «lN»ifcffl iWlfH . irUo^&iuz:4iA p>;XMi^yt!iCfT0i{if 
 
 -V--' • ^ '■ 
 
 : tK^-iit-t^J 1, ,.iiv Stc.j' MC ! /S a^5 ,'’^,,‘!<i^af‘fi(.6ii‘‘ . 
 
 . i.vV X- ■•-* ■, ^ U ., ’ . f f : 
 
 c,' 1 at i l ,-iit£aAV' 
 
 k ^ V - '*i . ' -■': . • 
 
 V'C^i'i;-: t<r «*V 
 
 ( ‘ *w . - ' V .. ■ '^y 
 
 ’SZV;«;W|' * . '•\r.~. • ■“**‘ 7 < ^ • * , \ ^ ■' \'P 
 
 V o<ii;^Xi?ti*. X^:>fju t5w4>ac/4Vita^ 
 . --^ •■• ' .:i., ,, 
 
 ■■ ' . iiu .. *'-eve:|oi hxtif fiyu' 
 
 
 -Mi '■ • 
 
 I -slkAl t «■._....* I. A,. . ..- 4 -— f TVij-.afr'.*' '1 
 
 
 M •'.'’> iSi 
 *« «<- « 
 
 
 . Q . , ..v.vVj- i 7 , 
 
 V . • L£ . , 4 -, i.A I'/', .M ,X 
 
cousin of the deceased were entitled to act in such manner. 
 
 A question arises as to how and where would the three fellow- 
 countrymen of the homicide be punished. It goes without saying 
 that the Athenian law would not permit the captors to adopt sum- 
 mary measures or grant them full liberty to treat the prisoners 
 as cruel as they liked. In all probablity, they were brought be- 
 fore the Athenian tribunals for a just trial. Though the exact 
 nature of the proceeding and the penalties imposed on the captured 
 victims are unknown to us, yet there remains but little doubt in 
 our minds that if the court found the seizure was unjustifiable, 
 damages were awarded to the innocent individual brought before it. 
 
 Androlepsia apart from being a means of international self- 
 
 3 
 
 help in view of a denial of justice, has a religious basis. Every 
 aiurderer must be duly expiated; otherwise the deceased would ever 
 pursue with his imprecation the impious relatives who had forgotten 
 the duty of revenge. But with the modification of the old strict 
 religious tradition, and the development of the school of scepti- 
 cism, the practice of Androlepsia gradually disappears. 
 
 In the place of Androlepsia, reprisals of political character 
 developed. Numerous examples were afforded in Homer and in historici 
 Greece. Thus, the Epeans had by their long and violent hostilities 
 inflicted great losses on the Pylians. Nestor, a Pylian, made an 
 expedition against the aggressors when his demands for restitution 
 had been rejected. Again, in 416 B.C. an Athenian garrison in 
 Pylos having plundered the land of Lacedaemonia, the government of 
 the latter instead of renouncing the existing neace and declaring 
 
 war against Athens, issued a proclamation authorizing its subjects 
 
 - 
 
 Phillipson, International Law Custom of Ancient Greece ^ Rome.35< 
 
 - --- - - -- - -- L-' ^ I ■ I W W— M ll i W ■ ^ I I ■Ill' I .1^^ * I I . 
 
SrW ^ '■ a i ."^l l« " .INC^hW - *••*- *r j 
 
13 
 
 to make reprisals on the Athenians. 
 
 In the period of Macedonian supremacy, reprisals were still 
 
 frequently used. But some restrictions had been laid down. The 
 
 aggrieved individuals should first forward their claims to their 
 
 respective governments and secure from them an express licence to 
 
 adopt the forcible measures, which served very often as a prelim- 
 
 4 
 
 inary to commencing open war. Since then the practice of reprisals 
 began to'oe established in Greece as a regularized juridical act, or 
 legitimate international procedure, for the purpose of putting 
 pressure upon some state to perform certain obligations, or of 
 exacting compensation when justice was denied. 
 
 Reprisals were also restricted or regulated by express treat- 
 ies or by commercial conventions. The treaty made between the two 
 Loerian towns Oeantheia and Chalaeura was the most important one. 
 
 The contracting pa,rties mutually agreed to restrain from the pract- 
 ice of reprisals within the territories or their ports, but not 
 
 in the open sea. If the seizure was not justifiable, the caotor 
 
 5 
 
 had not only to pay the fine of four drachmas, but also to restore 
 
 the goods seized within ten days. If such restoration was not 
 
 made an additional penalty by way of compensation would be imposed. 
 
 o 
 
 Italy had nearly the same practice of reprisals as Greece. 
 
 In the first place, the vindiciae (laying claim to a thing and 
 taking possession of it) of the Twelve Tables was of slight differ- 
 ence to the reprisals of the Hellenic law of nations. Secondly, 
 
 both of Greece and Italy imposed penalty on the captor for illegal 
 
 - 
 
 Phil lips on. In ternational Law and Customs of Ancien t Greece and 
 Rome . 353 
 
 5 . 
 
 ^Drachmas is a Greek coin, one drachm&.s is equal to 9 1/2 sterling. 
 3 
 
 Phil lips on, International Law and Customs of Ancien t Greece and 
 Rome . 364 
 
AM 
 
 <► I ji 
 
 1,1 
 
 
 . , «,if'/f^ 
 
 t?jr j 
 
 f * ^ >0 4^0'^ ^i.-^**''''-’- 
 
 ,V ' ' 'f ' *i \ '' ' ' ■' Q> 
 
 _ ^ ■’ '.iivoi! ;'tii 
 
 fj i 'ijt^^'' '-v* ../••/. X- (s»iijp x.;wvu'^ i^t-Tig«Ks« 
 
 k: M *• . . • . pr^..A. ..1^* •••..-. -'.^ .- A^. . .A&f, .. .. k 
 
 
 'I, 
 
 .: ■■ -’If ' r‘ * ’■ y'. ■' f 
 
 ■■. ; » V 'Iv:; .;3.a V,' .-t i a ''-^ 
 
 *■« ' ':) •/ ■ V - V ' 
 
 •'i ’ 
 
 . .-^ : u^i' (T.ir rtd» 3Si-ji!«<^i| .*r 
 
 ?'< •^. ** • • ' '■' *■«•;.( ' /*^,' *'* V*^ ' A ' 
 
 r "'i 
 
 
 w if w*. «. ft 3* .; i I . t » u 1 -IBB 
 
 Tr* - ^ ■ '»'■ . VM '?*’ T' : fe'' ;':3i^ 
 
 •. ' ' ’•<' . <■; • ^- _* V 
 
 ?y^. I) 
 
 
 Xi^ M ■ 4; 3 ' 1 ii^ s' «*!>^’' • iX'' * 
 
 •' •• : . ^ H •' ,j'( ; ■ .! ^ 
 
 ^ h^ . . %C 'j. v^pBK'A 
 
 T ^. ■ 
 
 
 rcUftjo; \-:i A'*** -* * viV'rfiy Iti? iiX£ii}rX|>3L 
 
 ♦ ■;*t ,*. I ' ■ a "Vifl 
 
 ' ■' *■ k i > Atl ■ ' ' ta ''f 
 
 ■ jt -‘ *\1 ■' jfets^jj.'a. ■'if*'44*wp^ 
 
 ■ "VS, ;'A ^ ^ 
 
 
 Ji> 
 
 ii' 
 
If 
 
 7 
 
 seizure. There was, however, in Rome a permanent court of inquiry, 
 
 namely, that of the recuperators established, to inv^est igate, among 
 
 other matters, alleged grievances resulting from the seizure of 
 
 property. Finally Rome, like the Greek states, made treaties with 
 
 other states for the purpose of restricting or regulating the 
 
 6 
 
 practice of reprisals. One of the most noteworthy treaties was 
 
 that entered into between Rome and Carthage (.306 B.C.). They 
 
 agreed that forcible measures of this kind were not to be adopted, 
 
 and that any act of violence, committed in the territory of the 
 
 one against the subjects of the other state, should be considered 
 
 a public offence and dealt with accordingly. 
 
 In the later period of the Roman Empire the practice was 
 9 
 
 seriously prohibited. Thus Honorius and Theodosius disapproved by 
 writing in 42S A.D, the seizure of an individual's goods for privat 
 or public debts of another individual or state. Some fifty years 
 later Zeno wrote to the same effect, and said that the act under 
 such circumstances was not only contrary to the law but autigon- 
 istic to all natural equity. Finally, in 537 A.D. there was a 
 novel of Justinian that referred to the abuse of seizure and laid 
 down the maxim that the offenders ought to be subject to corporal 
 punishment . 
 
 Furthermore, it was an ancient custom in England that wlien 
 an English merchant had been robbed or when his property had been 
 despoiled, the King of England would e-stablish a ooimmission 
 oo investigate the robbery and to punish the offenders. The work 
 
 Phillipson, Int ernati on al Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and 
 Rome . 364 
 
 9 , 9 
 
 Inte rnational t.aw and Custo m of i^ncient Greece and 
 Rome. 3o¥T ■365"'^"~ ^ 
 
*1 ' , ^(T-, / .>.t» » ' . /^. •; '*Y ; • ■ •’ ' i ‘ 
 
 II . * I. ; ■ • • A. . ■ 7 ‘ - .fc -r* 
 
 .' ■' ' • fN ■ . ■'• I' V I ■ *■ .: ’■: -i*- ;•■- — ^ 
 
 f ■ ,’ 4 ’| I V ^ ■-.*: '( t:c 
 
 ll ■ . -^ ■ S,“- ; . ‘ '^. ?• -’T • i'>- ’.u*? v-“ \ 
 
 ' ^ ^ .n.’ 
 
 
 ,I‘*X 
 
 *!*<' i' .. ^ -■ i . *■ ] ' 4 ’ a' •' • *. y r* 
 
 l»* ' ' •• ■ •■:\.L'>i(ifi^v' 4 i 4 !lli ' ’ .-. ..-J. 5 «|- 
 
 
 
 f. ' - . V« ■ ■■ ■" • ' * ■ “■'■ .“■ . ^ ’ 4 ?’ ■ ■ • •■■’ ' 
 
 
 
 .. • ‘ - It-J 5 • » . • ■ . r n?’ . , ’r^V •■ ‘V- •'•*™*'.'‘-' 
 
 
 
 L "Y r ' ■ i/H, / ■•' J * . ^ ^ ,v': _C I.:^ 
 
 ,!ry'/ - • .: g; v-v v..-»: ...• ■ T/- * i r*^*?*^^ -#•• ,flh •>.-. • ^^:-- •• i- 4 j J 
 
 I ~ <^lB i li'f li I I I I 'iiin n i(iiii f ' ' iJ ii i i i Miiii i iii ill I 1 1 i>i ii r i ^t ii ii Miii^aiiii.MiiiiiT . fi I n I 
 
 rVV' 
 
 «/ . . '^,. v« ,. 
 
of this commission was concurrent with the three laws, i.e., the 
 
 10 
 
 law of Custom of England, the Merchant Law and the Maritime Law. 
 
 During the middle ages and even in modern times to the end of 
 
 the eighteenth century, states were accustomed to grant "Letter of 
 
 Marque" to their subjects who had been injured abroad either by a 
 
 11 
 
 foreign state or its citizens and who could not get redress. 
 
 In the modern period, with the centralization of power, 
 
 private reprisals have been totally prohibited and in their places 
 
 magistrates, governors of provinces, and courts were authorized to 
 
 take charge of these affairs until at length the right was particu- 
 
 13 
 
 larly reserved for the central government alone. Thus in 1317 John 
 Browne, an officer of the admiralty of Scotland boarded a Dutch 
 fishing vessel off the Scotch coast in order to demand the ancient 
 duty known as the "size Herring." Payment was denied, John Browne 
 was arrested as a prisoner and carried to Holland by the commanders 
 of two D-utch convoying ships. Engl^and issued reprisals immediately 
 upon Dutchmen in London and demanded the release of the prisoner 
 and the punishment of the captors. The States of Holland found 
 it both necessary to disavow the action of the two commanders as 
 being "neither authorized beforehand, nor approved post factum," 
 and to yield to the demand of England. The offenders were extrad- 
 ized and English honor was entirely satisfied. 
 
 In France, the right to authorize reprisals was once vested 
 in the Parliament. In 1484 the King took over the right and in 
 
 10 
 
 Singer, International Law, 163 
 11 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law. Volume II. 37 
 12 ~ 
 
 Woolsey, Internationa l Law , 184 
 
If tft 
 
 ' 5 ' 
 
 rr^Mr • 
 
 • Ti SS^^-^dfU- . :'iriV (r^'i 
 
 ik, <* -,J|j^ ' ' > * 'f y -mV ' > tj’s'tl*'*' . . ' ,*■ -.^ 
 
 ' v ,: " Sw -. ^ ji . • r ; .‘^- • Vv y»-> yj 
 
 ■ i -• '* ; ' '•' "*■ ‘‘■^ ■'*.•■ \ *• '■' ' 7 ^' ~^f 3 & ‘ '-sl'v'a 
 
 '■‘«fc ;t^ •_ fcf*. v^-. . . u. ■ i -V . e ; <?•- <# ;.-<• 7 ftiU •-ve- tt t i 
 *41;=, :.. 0 -fw. vv ni 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 •j4vj 5 ■ J 
 
 >f' • ' », 'JJT ' , -^/V' <fj-5i»^f'' *1 
 
 
 :Vi ’"■« 
 
 , %Vs» 5 Wti^ 
 
 ..' - ..- ■* ’[' 
 
 t .1 . ly 
 
 
 
 •■Y’ 
 
16 
 
 13 
 
 1596 the earliest letters were issued. In 1S61, the ordinance of 
 Louis XIV on the marine was established in which the methods of 
 reprisals were prescribed. The injured persons, after showing the 
 extent of the damages received from a foreigner and after the King'^ 
 ambassadors had taken proper steps at the foreign court, should 
 receive letters of reprisals that permitted them to make prize at 
 sea of the property belonging to the citizens of the state from 
 which their requests for justice had been denied. The prize, how- 
 ever, should be brought before the court of admiralty and in case 
 everything was lawful, the claimants were only allowed to retain 
 
 the captured property in proportion to the extent of injuries 
 14 
 
 received. 
 
 As times went on, the acts of reprisals were performed by 
 
 the state themselves and at the end of the eighteenth century the 
 
 practice of private reprisals fell gradually into disuse until 
 
 15 
 
 finally it totally disappeared. 
 
 13 
 
 Taylor, Internat ional Publ ic Law , 164 
 
 14 
 
 Woolsey, International Law , 164 
 
 15 
 
 Oppenheiffl, International Law . Volume II, 37 
 

 *. s 
 
 -Ta^.'ts 4 ef‘:ri 
 
 
 iiMUMf 
 
 r% ^ til 
 
 - * ' WT C» r'fl . "l ’ ‘ ^ ' ' 
 
 ■ C -i 4 -'A ^ i . i 1 ! . i m 1 ’ i«U '‘o,|}¥ l?Tt. 6 y’f^' a^a J * 
 
 : ,,. ■ . " ; . . '• : • !‘-.v ■-••^ ' .. - 
 
 1 .<r irr ’^ JuixfK n^v't^-Mb ‘‘f.f 
 
 .,.■ , » ■' ' ?.u ■ ■ , -lil • ’ ' 
 
 ^r. o:.* .••is.ei ■■-•^ ;>«'* j(.r. /, 
 
 jr ,,^‘iN ,.^ .-, .. ^ 4 ' 
 
 . 31 ^ «II * ■.':' * ^. • /j>^ i '’^ i V.-J' 
 
 
 [d ' 
 
 <r 
 
 •. L^:'t < .cs>rlv 06 l"'<v^ii|l|i iu'-TT^V 
 
 ,a. .■ ■ ‘ ^ 3 . . 
 
 IfM. t i:t &K ‘•‘ja? Q w*.ot>2f6Itc«ii 
 
 .aqai ■ ■ vTO*-: ‘ 
 
 •, :>v.. ^ '-n i*- li cJJ 
 
 *■. “ ■■'■** ’ • ' ' '.y- , ‘ ■ij'^.'.f^'' 
 
 a ' ' " '*i<’ ’ ' v»ca ' ' V" . w 
 
 - '■ ■ Vv' 
 
 .- i e. 05 ^ t f < 
 
 • i* e t ji.4r- v«*4 w * >vi 4 a V q 5«n -'i ;3 4 *• J' * 4 t ’* 
 
 r > 
 
 ji" 
 
 4 * 
 
 
 , V, 4 T" "'‘"* - ■ ''t. 2 ih ^ .r fj.fi ii- 
 
 ’. V- ...1 #»%>■, li. uc.'i* 'jui <l?p' ' Jitijiii '' • 
 
 
 1 . 5 *.^'/** ■ P.t«vte io 
 
 • *'j». ^- '' *r '* ‘ ^ ft,< * »•• -■ .-.'If \ 
 
 • 31 ■ >a nflp-j/r ,r.- 
 
 
 .-A, 'V, . 
 
 ‘ t'._ 
 
 r .... ;.' *. 
 
 V *. . ■ 
 
 
 
 
 •* * 
 
 i« * .r S' 
 
 " ■ , 
 
 1 . ' 
 
 ■it , 
 
 ■ .' \f':. 
 
 , .'| ■ ■ 1 
 
 
 
 '1 
 
 .'1 
 
 1 
 
 
 iiin I ii'iyi nipi ^ I II HI \ ' 
 
 - “'•'■’•71 ' . V- '^* . . ■’ . i *' \\J' 
 
17 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 The Values of Reprisals 
 
 From the previous chapters we discussed what reprisals are 
 and how they developed. In this chapter our attention will be 
 confined to the value of reprisals. 
 
 Differences between nations may be terminated by forcible 
 means, short of actual war. Among the various modes used for this 
 purpose, the following ones are the most important. 
 
 (1) "By laying an embargo or requestration on the ships and 
 
 goods, or other property of the offending: nations, found within 
 
 1 
 
 the territory of the injured state." 
 
 (2) "By taking forcible possession of the thing in contro- 
 versy, by securing to yourself by force, and by refusing to the 
 
 2 
 
 other nation the enjoyment of the right drawn in question." 
 
 (3) "By exercising the right of vindictive retaliation or of 
 
 amicable retaliation; by which last, the one nation applies, in 
 
 its transactions with the other, the same rule of conduct by 
 
 3 
 
 which that other is governed under similar circumstances." 
 
 (4) By declaring a pacific blockade. 
 
 5 
 
 (5) By intervention. 
 
 (6) By instituting reprisals upon the persons and property 
 belonging to the offending states until the alleged injury has 
 
 1,2 ----- 
 
 Coleman Phillipson, Wheaton * s International Law , 404 
 3 
 
 Coleman Phillipson, Wheaton's International Law. 404 
 4,5 ■ 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law, Volume II, 34, 45 
 
’ I . ' 
 
 ¥ 
 
 >*« 
 
 
 u •; ':.J. jTO-v'O;’". 'W-.^a 
 
 ,V ■;• ■ >'. . ■/' . r ' -*jt ■ ■ ' 
 
 ►.' 74 >• 
 
 r «-<.r'- ' 
 
 ' -.V *,4y^,rMJti'V^ 'ip hJdiiLtf 
 
 ,>!;:&. aa\‘isrtf ,/r At (fei iix \ ^th.}: '■'■?% 
 
 ,» i 
 
 *s • 
 
 ;¥'.‘ •- ■■ ; 
 
 * ■ ■ •r'vipf-'" 
 
 
 • 'A'' 
 
 BS:- 
 
 '■'* • ■ » ' • ■* .-••^.■y.-' b' ‘ ■ ,:>, ■• ’ ■ • 
 
 : . 'ik'^ -‘--A 
 
 , » : ■- ■- . ^ 
 
 Stv'- •■' -.eAt' 
 
 ■■ . v' • *V ' * . ’* ,t. ',,’ ■*' ‘^''''s>»' ‘ A ■•''' 
 
 t ► '.*»1 .1. ; ; nt.a-'ii- f 7 <*■<>.«. 
 
 ^ tti^ lllif r, r.i' ’,-•! 
 
 . A - - 
 
 1 . ; . • :r 
 
 * ■» 
 
 
 (C <- 
 
 ■y' 
 
 _ • U iT y> ' ^ ■' r . • V ^ ■ *' S " ' * ^''S * V' ' **"'i\*' '<' ^ ' '®. 
 
 .:, .V,. ‘"?;-r, ■ 'V^' ■'' ■ ,V i 7 ^fcW 
 
 ’ 'ypyiiii 
 
 . . s:<it^^tfi>fcti 
 
 ^ S' 
 
 ' c J... , -■ , .- . , . « 
 
 •r '• . ..'■ ■ 1 <'./■ ■ ' A’l'n’^ y-y^ 
 
 -ijf* ( ' ' ' 't 
 
 . '.I*, .-f .4 * 
 
18 
 
 8 
 
 been satisfactorily repaired. 
 
 As all of the inodes except the last of terminating differ- 
 ences between nations by forcible means short of actual war do not 
 fall within the bounds of our discussion, we will pass them over 
 and concentrate our attention on the subject dealt with. 
 
 So far we have seen reprisals are forcible means short of 
 actual war for putting stress upon nations during controversy. The 
 next question we should bring out is, when and for what purposes 
 they are adopted, and after adoption, what effects they will 
 produce . 
 
 In the first place, they are supposed to be used when an 
 
 injury has been done concerning which a state cannot be expected 
 
 to remain in silence, and amicable means for settlement such as 
 
 negotiation, good office, mediation and arbitration have proved 
 
 of no effect, and at the same time the acts are scarcely of sufiic- 
 
 7 
 
 ient magnitude to be a cause for immediate war. 
 
 Under these conditions a means of putting stress by something ■ 
 short of war upon the offending state is inevitable. Reprisals 
 are good for this purpose for they are not only milder than war, 
 since they are war in form but not war in nature in strict sense. 
 They are also capable of being restricted to only such acts as are 
 best suitable for enforcing redress under the circumst8.nce of the 
 particular case. 
 
 Furthermore, states resort to reprisals for such int ernationa; 
 delinquencies as they think of insufficient importance for an 
 actual engagement of war, but too important to be completely 
 
 6 
 
 Oppenheirn, International Law, Volume II, 34, 45 
 7 - 
 
 Hall, International Law. (sth Edition). 361 
 
 I . I, I'.i i ■ .... 
 
I rvA ■ .tir. ». 
 
 Atr, 
 
 ■ # «)H.^ 
 
 Him favw^ 
 
 .. .'. r-‘M ■ ■ . ■'. OiW.^‘\v* i ■. ■: '' ^ :^^^^ * 
 
 ’•iVii <.'v .T3H» 4 V**' . fcA'C' .«<)!»«•■ 
 
 •T'V . . ’I ll'?*". .'^' *'■ » ’’.! ■ * »■. • ■ ' ■ . L' ,-1 ••' X. •« '^em 
 
 
 ^•<7 
 
 
 
 f , V*A* ■ '<.^ -5„ 
 
 ' I ' ' '* ^ ^ "*4 I 
 
 ' j jj'v ■: ■ . y» 
 
 . li, ' iiV’ 'I,' -■ 3 iVc^' #! »■ *'* *'■•''**''*•- 
 
 1 ' ;, ;■ :. . •;., , . •". ' , '‘'^ - .^ 
 
 .,t .4.I*V ... r,; rittk*>Uu( A: ri >;■.. v..rt'‘f’4i 
 
 
 
 , »■ •■' ’>- 
 
 »■., • -‘Ji-' ■ •' - ■ ' 'r-.li'v; ' ^ :;i3 ^ ■?Sj[^>,iEi;« l-’%' 
 
 » -'^ ^ > ■ ■ ' >■ ■ ■’■ . -■ 
 
 •■ ,1 . j.i.,« ^' ■"• -■»«»s,'x--'» W tV^- < 
 
 ,s* ,./i!.^«.,., , ,•, '.,1 .tklii?*' >0 * ' 'S’**.. 
 
 «aB»‘.‘y«s. .■< ■ .- ■' ■■ ■'■ . '■?' • ,.: ' ■ ' IT mL' H 
 
 m,pem 
 
 ■,y>.'ai;';5:a{. cti... :_,.v;ijU ei ;r;tjt^f 
 
 ,'i. -,ii.‘'».;? iV-^ .'‘it .t^ ' 
 
 '<•* -w * ■ * m.rtA'*!. -m.^^ LiWl'tll! . * W 
 
 ^ ■ 'rw:' X I*- ■ 
 
 
 i»-r «. . , :.;J^i/V ,“V n*^ 
 
 Iff ^••1^<'-.'' ‘ '' , 
 
 r- ■■ ■ • . I ^ •>>. •■* ".. ¥?i‘^^.tiif«STi6' '-iv* .*? 
 
 ■ ) . . W' .iL'/JJUi <--i -U 
 
 .tf. 
 
 

 6 
 
 neglected. 
 
 That reprisals are rather rude means for terminating differ- 
 ences between nations and that the institution of reprisals give, 
 and, indeed, has in the early days given, occasion to abuse in ca.se 
 of controversy between a strong and weak nation cannot be denied. 
 But as there is no court or central authority above the sovereign 
 state to give reparation for an injury inflicted upon another state 
 the institution can never be abolished. We must agree with the 
 opinion of Mr. Oppenheim expressed in his statement in his ’’Inter- 
 national Law,” that ”If all the states would become parties to the 
 Hague Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international 
 differences, and if they would have recourse to the Permanent 
 Court of Arbi traction at the Hague in all cases of an alleged inter- 
 national delinquency which affect neither their national honour nor 
 their independence, acts of reprisals would almost disappear," To 
 this, we may add that if the small states would have abandoned the 
 idea of absolute equality of states proposed by the delegate of 
 Brazil in the Second Hague Conference and offered hea.rty support 
 to the plan of the United States for the establishment of the Court 
 of Arbitral Justic, many recent calamities resulting from the 
 application of reprisals would not have occured. 
 
 But sorry we are to say that as long as the pride of states 
 does not fade away and as long as nations insist in acting in their 
 own ways, the abolishment of reprisals would cause more harm than 
 good. 
 
 In conformity with Article 14 of the covenant of the League 
 
 6 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law , Volume II, 43 
 
'/K 'T ’ 
 
 ■ ' »’ I * . •^■’ C J,^:^ I . .’ . .^ 
 
 L- 
 
 '»(£ ■ K!f»x 14 ,'.^v - .iuwa •■■|^« A isf . •?l 
 
 ;, \ ■•*■' ^v. V'\''‘.' '■-'’^■■<* '"' / ■'>'', iSBI'*' 
 
 ' £. t v$ ; lb '.4: a * n a»i 
 
 
 * '- r' \’ ■ ^ , ■ ' , *^''^■^. A "" .- ,,-^ i”'-> r-A. i y ' 
 
 yit lifter .U.V/- -XiCf |;J1 ?‘’y?if*4^^iNlJ»t.. 
 
 ,.. ,/va*vi.v. -:^>*. I I" ■ii^^x 4 ^ yn ’ 
 
 '■ .4l :■’■ '« ' ' m ' ' V ,.,7'5*a 
 
 *. 7 Xie lo 4't? ;i| 4ili 
 
 ' , ' ' '" ' " ' • "V ^-:.. -'iw % ^ 
 
 I 'j ■ ‘ <^ > ’ '"’^ '• 1' ' I '■» ' ’'■ ' t-fo '■»••■ 5*1 
 
 
 
 vt;yi 
 
 
 ? ‘ 1’ • * * ’ ■ .^ ■» ' *'jt jj* * ■*■ . . * J'.ji 
 
 ''ll! 
 
 i?a.^ *W ^.-<fi^'^ll< -^WSU' -AOt 
 
 ' .• " ' "=^T ^ ^ 
 
 '■ ' -■ '^' V^>' ' K'y 
 
 ' " ^ t -'* -kf “'• oijjSi : 
 
 ' 'SKjt:, •: . ' J1 ,. J'.J'. -Jr.4 r : J 
 
 ^i; . ’> I.^J'' Uu 
 
 {■- 
 
 Jtl' 
 
 ^ . 
 
 t 
 
 t: 
 
 iii...r.7. .:'.wkifA»M 
 
 '^M'i 
 
 ,, .li'Li|'5^'SS.yl 
 
 
 
 
 Mil 
 
 
 
 
 m. 
 
 iM 
 
 
20 
 
 of Nations, a permanent Court of the International Justice was 
 formally opened on the thirtieth of January 1922. It was estab- 
 lished for the purpose of hearing and deciding international dis- 
 putes submitted to it by the parties in controversy. Although it 
 has been declared that the court is but an addition to the co\irt 
 of the Arbitration organized by the conventions of the Hague in 
 1699 and 1907, and the special tribunals of Arbitration, yet it 
 reaches the highest watermark of the development of international 
 judicial organization. If all countries in the world would submit 
 to this permanent court all kinds of international disputes, no 
 matter whether they are legal or political, whether or not they 
 involve national honour, independence or vital interest, the result 
 would be the discontinuance of the use of reprisals. Otherwise, 
 the practice of reprisals ought to be continued. 
 
 Of course self-respect may forbid a state to yield under 
 violent and coercive pressure, although willing to accept a sugges- 
 tion to settle the question at issue by some reasonable concession. 
 But, under certain situations, when strong powers find the neces- 
 sity to undertake practical police measures a.gainst a weak and 
 obstinate power, reprisals may be a useful alternative to war. 
 
 They are less destructive and more limited in their operation. It 
 is not untrue that they may be used to impose injury upon small 
 
 states by bringing out unreasonable demands. But war is so terri- 
 
 9 
 
 ble that is would certainly cause more suffering. From this 
 point of view, it is again apparent that to banish from interna- 
 tional law its sanction of reprisa,ls seems unreasonable. What we 
 
 9 
 
 Lawrence, Princi ples of International Law . 343, 344 
 
; T 
 
 m 
 
 '•''•■> ■<« 'i'^ y » 
 
 >!*• 
 
 
 i, ) =•: .,C 4 gi' ■iio'wi.'tfSt! ««i 6 iri>* 
 
 ’^'^, .<r ' ^ , '. <" I 
 
 ", ■ 'I^i C;J0g^4< Jt-’^- llJW0’3tf‘X'-‘ Ji'j \o , 
 
 ■ 'V ■• ” *“-' '*■ '• ’: -r - ', , , (ffi • ^' 
 
 
 :; n • ■ •■ •■ •V:^;.:- "V- ■ ^ 
 
 y \pt^i .*W sVif?: 
 
 . -. 
 A, •,» f*tT 
 
 k ' * , * ' ’ * ' . ■ - V ? ^ • ' ' ' ~ • 
 
 t \ ' ' < 1 ^ ' *'■'' k'^' V ’ 
 
 ' 6 li ■ ii. 4 ‘^i;-..-v. ■ -Tv i ^ 
 
 if I . ..i’ - 
 
 K ' - 
 
 
 
 ^ I- '. '-w v.-.'i- i'X'rP’lK^ti 'i .•• 
 
 i •, • ^v 4 ^ ' ', ’ ^ ‘c '’'■' ’ 
 
 c^'i uuo . .-,vi. V *« 4 i' t-/' tvj, 
 
 
 . . wa,.: Ji ■■; . o 7 
 
 * tl'* f^M(t;i Rlv ' . 
 
 < „_.i' 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 T i 
 
 -^t* .X ■ * " >b' ■ 
 
 i?i^w 
 
 A,-' ' ■ '"• / !• •' ' - ‘ -.rjpte-A 
 
 
 ^ ' *'' 'v \ . . , .•'^r 
 
 't ■ * . * ^ ’ • Iff vf*^- ’i 
 
 ' ' M '-*^ '" ~ 7 ^' * ^ *' j ' 
 
 .L&Z t: _^Xi'iSmi< 4 ^^^ 
 
 ' • '■.'”< '^v'- ' 
 
 .^^y,P 7 3 ij ^i»r;. i?>>* , 4 X^#o^' o*<ail.u- 0 c> I 
 
 ■ . ' ■ ''V? ■'■ < ' .V ' X iv^i^ 1 
 
 * ^ ^ ^ ■■ ^ life **' 
 
 ■•' ' ** '»•,'■■ '^.’‘t .V '■ .; *'’ -v^,, I 
 
 y.v?i ?ilfflR.i!iJ‘'Vl-‘& i»jL ... s : ..':^|te»./«' T -•' ~; -rv* *“ / 
 
 »3rt.i.wt ..j^v.£fe,aiLiaa,?if;?.I -Ig .f,y.M4B<a8?'.« a>P>'<»«4iB' 
 
 *k*k^it *»#'] «fc-i'<- » , K vi>i^rT "I x l l - f itu '• «- A.- . ^ 
 
 ■' J. / '^*K«'( . ! ■! w ' Hyi . . 
 
 
 ,:J.' vf 
 
 -U,! 
 
3/ 
 
 should do is to create a strong public opinion against the operat- 
 ion on slight provocation or for a manifestly unjust cases, and to 
 get rid of a new danger which arose in consequence of the decision 
 of the Second Hague Conference that the commencement of hostilities 
 must be preceeded by a formal declaration of war. By this rule 
 the strong nation may be tempted to evade new obligations by at- 
 ' tacking the weak nations suddenly under the guise of reprisals. In 
 order to meet this danger Professor Westlake proposes a rule that 
 no form of reprisals "shall be used against any state unless it re- 
 fuses or neglects to reply to an offer of arbitration, or after 
 accepting the offer, prevents any agreement of reference from 
 
 I being concluded, or, after an arbitration refuses to submit to an 
 10 
 
 i award . ” 
 
 A 
 
 ! Again, reprisals are preferable to wax for two other reasons, 
 
 ! ! In the first place the goods seized by a belligerent in time of 
 
 , ' War are goods for prize, while, on the ether hand, goods seized 
 ' ‘ . 11 
 ’ by reprisals are restored if peace should be oontinued. In the 
 
 ‘ second place after the reparation of injury, a revocation of the 
 
 Letters of Marque or reprisals may restore peace without the delay, 
 
 13 
 
 difficulties and ceremonies of a treaty. 
 
 Reprisals may produce a psychological effect upon states. 
 
 It is due to the fear of reprisals that the arbitrary action of 
 the medieval sovereign was checked. Otherwise the property of 
 , the parsing foreigners would have aroused a great temptation. It 
 is by the same fear that those who have at the present time 
 
 : 10 
 
 ^Lawrence, Principles of International Law . 344 
 Hal leek. International Law and Law of War, 143 
 
 s 12 -- - — ^ - “ 
 
 Moore, International' Law Digest , Volume VII, 133 
 
' {^- c » iii.\i 'lX:\^" ^ ' 
 
 ^ iV- } * *, './mW-'" 
 
 EftVuu-. ii ? to s .-j jiA^* i trj'ffmv-*i 
 
 ‘i ^'tliv^W'-a 'IM •:t!ti’iMo^<L ,^t>, iirif' Sia l t 7 
 
 < '■ ■ ' :••* '■ " ' ' ‘ * ■V - ;^, 
 
 I I * / ' rf ♦' ► I ' ' . r “ ' 
 
 t ■ W; 1 V i 
 
 I ' ?'• ' *' * * 4)81' • ' •V ’^■'s * H'' *1f? '51 
 
 !! !" -..tu 3f '.“^i .tiW#' 
 
 
 ► % t» ~ 
 
 4 * » ^ V*' ‘*!J>^W ^ 4 . 
 
 
 
 
 j' f 
 
 .'■■•/.• . .- r.;'*2 . 1. 14 t^i* 
 
 <:•? Vi-'' w v/4. »'’^.(./<!*.^ i,^*‘j?'W'’J cr-fiJ i 
 
 ( 
 
 H-;-.?'''a k^. 
 
 
 
 \\y n, 3r'*.’t v'-^- v: v.i^^r., -oj(j 
 
 ,u-*. »,«et. '.st *f X'B» .,«Kr^- 
 
 ' " . ' .^V-f ' ; W. »J!: . r 
 
 A 
 
 
 ■ ^' 
 
 ■I, Ii1' 
 
 » ' '13 •' '® I 
 
 i«* <3 j &j:./*:v:t.f/i , 5r^» *1 
 
 •jLf ;T.i :\>*,i •- Xi.-h \. ti t>Ad' 
 
 If ' » i '* *V 'rf^' ’*' '''' ■'*.■ *' I •» '' ' ' i ’ 'i^i»K« ' *'^1 
 
 ao^iSXi/iiw 
 
 .*sC> ;uj«v-li>^ 
 
 hJH 
 
 » 
 
 K': 2rfi#JSii-» '•'1. \|»“^.J6 *» *• -* 
 
 1, 
 
 I 
 
 k« 
 
 
 ‘tii,i^ Iv* fKiJ" 
 
 I ' j*" "j *' ' ' * ' 
 
 «vt i , .-J M.> ' #,« .*0% ;»-aw ?.<= »ii . ; to J^i%:^*l 
 
 ' . ' 1' U • *■ 'f . _<,.’ 'w 
 
 hr. 4 » f <-i->.A aV ■* f f JAi^arfK; .ri *rfr Lei’ll I't, 
 
 lit , >. ikC/Crfi-: &54v Z^J 
 
 [i- ■'* ■ '■■■ ^ 't"- ' ■ i^-ij k . -^ . -.<:^'w 
 
 V ■ '- 
 
 
 / . 
 
 . -t tiCi^w Szv.li X.o^.'i'.ec, V., Avu4-^l'3;ji ’^ii* i» iJ|f--ir«5i“?-, 
 
 M' 
 
 ^ tOi iiui ‘ r,j^ $x.«j » f 
 
 I’v -d^i v5-!sr^ A,'; ’::i; -iit fc4»' a. - 
 
 /■ ■• -• .p ..-• •*.••' ' /,... .jrfA. 
 
 1 ii»,^ - :J4 87 'w^t Ittt ty v- 
 
 .fc ■ bfc. B. •'' ■• ■ ■ .-■ -- ■ ■-, #< ' '.', yii' V-* 
 
 ’? ’ **■" ' . tkr (jb?,i£...^ .s^ .;lsj ■Oaifejckti.'ij'jsal., 
 
 • Ij. •*''■ '•-[V---^. H -. Vt ■'■' ' - 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 -w,--f.7 
 
 ■SC5« 
 
 ,-.f" 
 
'“■■■ " 
 
 strong' inclination to commit a wrong against others are in like 
 manner often prevented. The question why evil-doers are checked 
 hy retaliation seems very interesting. The answer is simple. It 
 is nothing but human nature. As a person, who is inclined to do j 
 
 wrong against another person, is always afraid of being- revenged, 
 why should not a state imposing injury upon another state be afraid 
 of being retaliated by reprisals? 
 
 Through the high tide of Chauvinism, Protectionism, and 
 unfriendly feelings against foreign nations, states often issue 
 legislative, administrative and judicial acts against other states 
 which though are not internationally illegal may be enforced in 
 such a Way as to endanger the friendly relations and intercourses 
 in the community of nations. The certainty of reprisals is the 
 only effective way to subdue the temptation. 
 
/.ifl - 4 ^» -* 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ir; 
 
 f' 1 . "I • t '■ if ^'*'H' (■ ■ ► ' "I* *'*^'' ! 
 
 .*_ 1 ■ ' r..‘ ' . '.it, ' ' ..'t. . - 1 .. ■ tj 
 
 K./';V’' V. . AV . V, ». ■^ r v* ^ .^d v-^.» 
 
 .:■ Vf ia,;. Tj ' 
 
 .u' ' ■; L-t^' i-‘At<i ,v . ft. . <i5r4M)t“^c -'i; #ti 
 
 --y.-. '.•4; ^v- 
 
 J •' ■ * • ^ I .V #”^ m Jv< .Mfc i P S' ' 
 
 . ‘’■/t;''(^i,v'/‘^'*V'-*’ ■(|%'*''- ' ' 
 
 ■'^- ^ ..., •■ ' ••? ' ' .. . •»» "'sX, ‘ ■* ■’ Ki ,■ , Jf »ilW*«Sv 
 
 My/m- - 4 ^ ttjv v^ 
 
 ■*. •■ -.■ - /; , f- .• . ■. ,.? ,. 
 
 - ff . ^ 'y '*'♦ ' ^-v;'i. »ii‘' :». .4 Tisfsr".. :ii 
 
 ‘ '- ' DwV • ' ■' ■ ■ I- y -- / v 7 ' 
 
 .u--, lx»f-(f. Jo . : Xkn tM 
 
 . - k >/'» t, 
 
 ■‘ • 9 ’ 
 
 ''■ 7 ' , 
 
 f . ■ ' , * ' 9 “ * 
 
 »■ sh* 4 ^ ■ 
 
 i 
 
 'I * jfr. 
 
 . 1 ^ 
 
 . li 
 
 i 
 
 h ;$m 
 
 ■' 't. *ff 
 
 „■ 
 
 i i h'StM Jr-- iTj}i 
 
 '"" ■f ■^'■ 
 
 *'■ 4Ss I'i’jlifc.flf ^ 
 
 [1 ■ r 
 
 
 
 
 trf ■, J 
 
 - Vr^ 
 
 ‘'A 
 
 
 ■t . 1 ' 
 
 ,4 . I 
 
 
 .i ! i 
 
23 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 The Justification of Reprisals in Time of Peace 
 
 In the previous chapters we have discussed the meaning, class- 
 ification and values of reprisals. In the remaining chapters, I 
 shall endeavor to examine the two important aspects of reprisals 
 in international law: namelj'’, the justif icc^tion of reprisals in 
 time of peace, and the justification of rex)ri3al3 in war. 
 
 We shall begin first with the question of the justification 
 of reprisals in time of peace. As one of the means of settling 
 international differences, the enforcement of reprisals may not 
 always be justifiable. When, or on what occassions then, are 
 reprisals justifiable in time of peace, and when or on what occas- 
 ions they are not? These questions should invite our serious atten- 
 tions. It will be convenient to discuss such questions section by 
 section. 
 
 (l) Reprisals Admissible for International Delinquencies. - 
 "International delinquency,” says Professor Oppenheim, "is every 
 injury to another state committed by the head and government of a 
 state through violation of an international legal duty." It may 
 consist in an ill-treatment of the injured state's subjects abroad 
 by a denial or delay of justice or in non-compliance with treaty 
 obligations, or in violation of the dignity of a foreign state, 
 violation of foreign territorial sovereignty or any other interna- 
 tional illegal acts. If the injured state in such cases cannot 
 secure reparation from the delinquent state through negotiation, 
 
y. 'M^ V 
 
 v<wll^* 7 ' 
 
 •ro ^-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 "W rffMTV^ ’ ,Vnj •/‘.HiP 
 
 f AflT -r» ^ ^ ' 'T ' P^' 
 
 , V''^r .., 
 
 
 y '■ * . ' I ! •. M 
 
 '»■ 
 
 f t-'W^.. . 
 
 
 Ji 
 
 Vv£^';.;$‘ xi;uW Ot- »^,s#qc.’6 ‘ttXv'i;>iX^^ ^4? < 
 
 I 
 
 
 , ' % u »(r;fi: um < ^ , 
 
 ■iT'' 
 
 ! ' ‘‘ 
 
 
 
 
 £ ‘ 
 
 ‘ A"- 
 
 
 ’4{)0 ?-’ •. '! 
 
 
 ■f 
 
 1 
 
 4 . .•;rv-' . 
 
 «0't> -■ 
 
 -. if) 
 
 ’>* c.V 
 
 
 Jt»'C£ ki 
 
 [;‘ :,.;? 4 .f.,i-..-- 
 
 %r. »K. -'. 
 
 ' T . ■ * ■ _ '* '- ^ • * ^•- ■ ^ v^v /•, ’■'*:r-' . •. 
 
 ; ycu . I rf fvxr:» nit ici 1 0c5,; v.% ./JtA, u/t4^Xn«sn' 
 li j« Ai»**i. •uroii) :<;4. 
 
 l,. jt'.' ' ■. ’ ,f, 'v " ;■ y. • ,T.^»fi^. »■. ;,«:■ 
 
 ' * * ' '^ !•’ '• 'al* * 1 ** ’ i . .'1 
 
 
 ' . .. . ■. ‘ .. _y. ,'. .....Jx.. fdLiimm. 
 
 •: ' • ■■ ^ ,* .vy-* 
 
1 
 
 the former is permitted to issue reprisals against the latter. 
 
 Thus, for example, in the case of the Sicilian Sulphur Monopoly, 
 Great Britain exercised acts of reprisals against the two Sicilies 
 in 1640 for a violation of a treaty. In 1613 a treaty of commerce 
 Was concluded between the two Sicilies and Great Britain by which 
 the latter had secured certain commercial advantages. In 1636, 
 when a sulphur monopoly was granted by the Neapolitan government to 
 a company of French and other foreign merchants, Great Britain, in 
 order to protest against this violation of her treaty right, demand' 
 ed the revocation of her monopoly. When the Neapolitan government 
 failed to comply with this demand. Great Britain laid an embargo 
 on Sicilian ships in the Harbor of Malta and sent out a fleet to 
 seize Sicilian vessels as means of reprisals, A number of vessels 
 were captured accordingly. They were restored, however, after the 
 Sicilians had through the mediation of France, agreed to revocate 
 their grant of the sulphur monopoly. 
 
 (s) Reprisals ought to be Preceeded by Negotiations and to 
 be Stopped when Reparation is Made. - Like all the other compulsive 
 means of settling international disputes, reprisals are admissible 
 only after the failure of negotiation which is conducted for the 
 offending state. In the early days, when the practice of special 
 reprisals was in prevalence, a certain period of times to elapse 
 was provided in the treaties of commerce and peace after an appli- 
 cation for redress before the grant of Letters of Margue by the 
 3 
 
 injured state. Thus by the 34th article of the treaty of 1654 
 1 ” 
 
 Oppenheim, Internat i onal Law , Volume II, 35 
 Oppenheim, International L^w, Volume II, 41 
 
.'SJV VV-- ''A T> 
 
 ■i%: 
 
 r 
 
 1^ I 
 
 f 
 
 I , ‘ i»d!^ ni. .-■ itifr ffl 
 
 I ■ ,-i'/' • 'y^ I 
 
 ^ V ■• ei-*v/Jf ;‘.I .-VV^iB^r ii 
 
 I 
 
 111 
 
 
 « 
 
 . ♦ « 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 
 jj” C» 4 'i ^ ..L .;v*- V. 4 rt ■ 
 
 IKII* ^ Vu in’?lA *if.- ii c>a 
 
 Lw«t'*-V J<3 A •': t ;<#N i v i>-fx;tiZv'-^i^^ 
 
 ■ ■•• ■ -^ ,-».i . 
 
 , ,_rj .f/-tcrt 4 l ^ i‘: r . vl'f 7 r'Jt//- 
 
 ^'' '®-V‘ ' • ,. '■ '-^ - ■■ •'-, *‘:!%., 4 (P '’<9 
 
 .? ;• j c |. ' ;> V *<aM * r t>> , 
 
 r. ' 
 
 • ( ' -• ‘ 
 ,\- 
 
 Ot iil^ V 3 . 
 
 '■ .■•*■* ^.i' 
 
 ■'A''-*i:r : 1 ''® 
 
 k 
 
 -V 
 
 U/a 6 e^i& 
 
 4 .,- « ,v ■ ^.' -V ■ ^,. ''V V 
 
 fcifliiasiiA. f. n^.'Ui-i-i ,hj^ni\ittf-utb ■ttn.'t' -ti^ -^so ‘«v »i» 
 
 i **’ ■ ' >. ' ■ . . '■ ,, r.H 1.'.: . ' 'V '■ ,,>;-T ,« ; ■■ wt,*''j»"a 
 
 •\oY. K*tt7 ■>i.<‘K^t.g ii m ‘.>it‘ Ic t^itiitiM -vikii-' 
 
 ■ ■^ ■ •* "V ■ ^'*V trt '" '■' • '.■••■:«* 'in’ • 
 
 *'• '■ T V ’■■•■ ^ '* », . i '•: • ’ ‘ 
 
 * V . . .'^ ..‘V ... *' 
 
 t s ' to o 't •'' " »» .t r ■ wT - .->5 - ti .^;jB--a> 
 
 v.»’ . ''U' ‘‘ ^ 
 
 Ki *, '*.'±J t- ‘ •» ... .. .. ■ ,. ,.* X ; ... ■ » / i' t"" ‘ . 
 
 ■■'•'■■' ■ ■'?' * 1 ^. ' ■'. ' 
 
 if^i'4i«V.., ! .■«< : '.. ‘ ■'' 's w , s. V. - ' 4i, .* W wjjfc.-jr-, -r ' ? 
 
 •V ^ ^ 4 ' 
 
 v;.r :j;^^ 
 
2r 
 
 concluded between England and Holland a period of three months was 
 
 stipulated to elapse after the application for reparation before 
 
 the reprisals were granted. Again by the treaty of 1669 between 
 
 France and Holland the length of time for such purpose was four 
 3 
 
 months. Even though special reprisals have fallen into disuse at 
 the present time, a reasonable time must be allowed for the perform 
 ance of reparation. 
 
 On the other hand as soon as reparation is given, reprisals 
 must be stopped. Individuals arrested must be released, ships or 
 other property seized and retained must be returned, territory 
 occupied must be evacuated, treaties suspended must be again en- 
 forced, and the like. 
 
 (3) Self-help. - Reprisals are admissible in case of self- 
 help. Thus, for instance, when Holland in 1760 repudiated the 
 treaty obligation under which she had promised to relieve England 
 when attacked, the British government used reprisals by suspending 
 all particular stipulations concerning freedom of navigation and 
 commerce etc., contained in the several treaties concluded between 
 England and Holland. 
 
 The acts of the British government, although being of a war- 
 like nature, were justifiable; for the condition was such that in 
 the pursuance of the right of self-preservation euid under the 
 pressure of absolute necessity she could not use any other effec- 
 tive means to win back the mind of the Dutch government. 
 
 Nevertheless, the conduct of the British government in this 
 occasion is still subject to serious criticism. In the first place 
 
 3 
 
 Phillimore, Inte rnatio nal Law . Volume II, § 14 
 
-Mir i,v>v,;i';^ - rvifia 
 
 ••# . * 1 ,4 ...•J'*i; • . 
 
 ^ T,' • • ^ ' * I ^ 
 
 ■ V^ . ^ '1 
 
 ', t ‘ 
 
 )'•■ » -ijt < 1 1 ^»; ^ - ■■^»?iSif 
 
 ...^ >.(■,*, -s , «fi.j ioW,5is»i,''«t,/ , 
 
 ■ '■ '"'w ' ■’ 
 
 Nr > J- * •«; ' r. " < '., ■■/■'-»?( ‘^ ii^^< 4 SrS^Y“' ^ 
 
 : ■ ‘ j ■ ^ f ’ A V ^ ^ tyiX 
 
 ■ ■ ■ '% ■•■>■''* • '■• ' '^' ^^ ■ 
 
 mr- \V'* itfc. t 4 *. '•*■ 
 
 '*■,>•> .• ■'-■V- ■ S- "I ‘ ■ :'^ 
 
 j 1 .y. r •! Vf t^*V! ■■ Ctit- 
 
 
 ?' . 
 
 '•/a ;.4 
 
 r, 
 
 •^l » i- ? 11 'Q I ■ *. • 
 
 if ' . , 
 
 n.-Cis' 
 
 1 * 
 
 
 
 » “n : h * -r ft . 
 
 ,., ■ f- , ,-f -^ 
 
 tii <•,.;>« <i 
 
 . l, I ■•, TO||, 
 
 ?•> U' ■ ".- ' ' ' ■ ' i' ' ' ^ • - '^^il^vi'^ 
 
 - Vvi^t-V' Jij.) . .vj Jbt V tRUN 
 
 • ' ‘ •■ ’• %“ V’ 
 
 :-v .a.- 'ff* 
 
 'Vijk.rj 1 V 4 jK, ».y '*'^^^*4i^ ”'• * ■ I *1’4 • . Mb **» 3 "* • ■• V-?-' i»l^-* i- ■■■ ! ll'H[<W>fO i 
 
 l'»“ -'■ ■v-‘- •'■ "^ ' -, />'■■' ,.^’.v-n -, ,,.„ 
 
 ■ •'■■’■ • 7 ■'•“ ■/ '' '? .■*• \.w’^ 
 
 !t:l 
 
 f ' r .- ^• 5 a'-i« » •^*'^^ 4(81 A®' 
 
 iV ..ri 
 
 W-Ai'»V" i: -N Jir • .■/•.. .V '■' •*? .Wf ™Pi5 
 
 
 *X' 
 
 tf A ’ / * * ff ' ‘r ffSIt? 
 
 .'X >’' . 
 
 ■' /-*’-' . "''^’ ■ 
 
 '*4 -1 ul' *;\'i ., ;. i, 
 
 
the measure of rex^risals was resorted to without waiting till the 
 exhaustion of all diplomatic means of securing redress; and, in 
 the second place, the reprisals did not bear a proportion to the 
 magnitude of the injury received. 
 
 (4) Reprisals for the Protection of Citizens Abroad. - In 
 
 consequence of the right of protection over its subjects abroad 
 
 which every state enjoys and of the corresponding duty of every 
 
 state to treat well the aliens in its territory, an alien who 
 
 retains his allegiance to his mother country cannot be outlawed by 
 
 the state where he stays but must be afforded protection for his 
 
 4 
 
 person and property. 
 
 The alien’s home state has a right to claim protection for 
 him from the state that allows him to enter its territory, and it 
 would be no excuse that such state does not provide any protection 
 whatsoever for its own citizen. Consequently, every state is 
 compelled, by international law, to grant to the aliens at least 
 an equality before its courts with its own citizens as far as 
 safety of person and property is concerned. The officials and 
 courts of the state must not injure an alien in person or property. 
 Thus the police cannot aurrest him without cause and the court can- 
 not unjustly punish him. 
 
 Moreover, if by long usage and custom, the aliens are allowed 
 to enjoy certain rights; and these, though originally a free con- 
 cession are, suddenly, unjustly, violently and without any equit- 
 able notice deprived from them, it is considered an injury done 
 to them for which his home state should demand reparation. The 
 
 4 
 
 Oppenheim, Internation al Law . Volume I, § 330 
 
(T- 
 
 ' ' vr 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ . /j: ;■ ;• <*. .'. •. 
 
 ' ' ^ ' 4 . 
 
 •;,. ■•'j A ■;" ': /V% 
 
 •i-i \ vOH'i '-j-i* ><. (!• ; t* .? .;:, 
 
 • ^■«^ak'- - - ■*nW';fc:a:''*::pv iL |jw 
 
 ■ ; F-'O's '■** , • " '■'* ' ‘V- ^ A 
 
 !®>i .-.„=/;,^,a»(|:- ;4: W*'-A'X'*‘V<i& P’” ^ 
 
 >Wt <i' - '•i-'l^ . -.-.I iW . J 'I 
 
 • K l»^ 
 
 . i't -*c^' k >4 
 
 K ' * '* *' • ' ■' *' ■’"X'-'-'’^'* '‘^ '•' ^-- ’■' ' “ V '1 
 
 
 f'VTJ 
 
 , j . 
 
 :- . .< v’ -t4-« - %tal 
 
 ^ , • -i .. . _ _ ■ 
 
 
 : c; . •» « e*t« CJ^' u'i^- 
 
 •* ” ..C c "ii..r V. :■;■. • _• ... 
 
 
 1 .»!../, 
 V 
 
 k/ 4 i 
 
 '• K. 
 
 -V ‘ // •■£. ' "'J 
 
 * 
 
 c- 
 
 » 'i. 4 *^’ * “ 1 ^ 
 
 «•■■. «y 
 
 , ' lir* ■* * 
 
 
 V, , T „ ^vWr;' ' • . :.'V^ 
 
 
 'M 
 
 w' 
 
 if 
 
 '*i' 
 
 "Hi 
 
 :t''- '■ ' ,. , 
 
 f' - i^->r ‘t* ■ ■■ '^•■■^ j|r 
 
 >- ,T'i .... ‘ 4 h*- ^ rfijk’jjit' 
 
 ■1 •-'5 ' # 5 .>fMUW ..-._™_-. 
 
 '•<•■' ■ ■i .it' Jls ,'t' 
 
 ■ -aw .♦■■ ' 5 r -;X4' 2iifhv 4'-»'<»’ .'It*. -:'i..#i5,xt )fr; 
 
 ■aj,;V,V •- *• . ’ V , ,' > , X ".pr "ii ■ ,^. ■■ I -■. >; ^ 
 
 '.f.v . sjji til ;»»*., ti|iit -:X#^Wv , vxV't‘Jup#uir; 
 
 
 ,v *.vi 5 r: 4 aipii ,,,4 /i 
 
 ^. . tiu XXti*'4 ' *8»<(v nai. i|n‘ e!*', 
 
 '■ .:--'‘' 5 "> '■' ^ '' !m.'m 
 
 1 • •:■ . 2 ‘ J ',. *''<'■' '*''' :'■ ‘: .1.-j¥ '.' ..'VV^i''’ .** .». r.>*i; &.•*-.•• i*- iXi V, ■«'•*“ 
 
 ' : •• >.■'■ J- ■ . +v 
 
 >- %V:.'V *: <a.V« « ' 
 
 »' * 
 
 \ • ' 
 
 ’■: ■ »'.»<t Vi''>.'j.'. ' V ■ ■*" 
 
 .■:.,. ..'-.d' : ..■ if /¥TT.,-. 
 
denial of this demand will justify it in exercising its sovereign 
 right of protection. This right can he exercised in several ways; 
 In the first place, it can insist, through diplomatic channel, 
 upon the punishment of the wrong doers according to the law of the 
 land, and, if necessary, upon the payment of damages to the injured 
 subjects. Secondly, it can exercise retorsion or reprisals in 
 order to force the offending state to comply with its demands. It 
 can, further, exercise intervention or appeal to arms when it is 
 necessary. 
 
 International laws have given sanction to this right and 
 duty of protection. But a question still remains fresh in our 
 mind. That is, whether a state has a risrht to exclude aliens. 
 
 That a state has such right is almost unanimously agreed by the 
 writers of international law. "Every state is free to admit for- 
 eigners upon its territory or to exclude them, in case of necessity 
 from motive of public order; with stronger reason it is free to 
 admit them on certain conditions, under certain restrictions. At 
 the same time the usage generally followed by governments permits 
 to foreigners, in time of peace, entrance upon their territory, 
 freedom to trade, passage, temporary sojourn, and settlements; but 
 it is well understood that every individual presenting himself 
 upon foreign territory, by this fact alone tacitly agrees to submit 
 to the laws of the country that receives him, to pay the imports 
 due from any commercial operations in which he may engage or any 
 
 business which he may establish, and to observe the local police 
 5 
 
 regulations." "The reception of aliens" says Professor Oppenheim, 
 
 5 
 
 Hers hey, Essent i als of Internation al Publi c Law, § 244 
 

 ‘ .JV1 cr<s>!t: tu '. v-t 
 
 1 f. •■ ' ■■' ■ ." • ‘ t. 1 .' -. ■ 
 
 ill 
 
 M, »( '• A l' 
 
 f ,-rW 
 
 I 
 
 I . 
 
 
 j Ji t V. ti 5 b. cf ; V u t/ ;;. 
 
 *■ *' ''■/'• Vj ■) 
 
 . .. - . ■ ! - ', ‘ ■ , .• r.’” . 
 
 . . ' '■' • ■ ■ . ‘ . ■" ;. ; * j],''i ifV 
 
 ’if i f ' . ■* ; .0- /.»<► i '»«)i . 1 «>4 »- liJ'-s \ 4lfn^:>^^' 
 
 '• J* ^ .■ >^ ' •< ' ':'i ' A ''>5 ' ’• 
 
 >- 
 
 i>' 
 
 
 y '<!.•* M ■‘SR^.'f- l-.'t to ' ^ t Ig t ;r n e 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■• V, .;; . * 4 ’^. « 3 l 
 
 ."v;, *s]- 
 
 .'• .. . ■ C vii * ■ ■»ir^ ^:. v|J ■X. flP;i 
 
 . ^, -tJ.j ,‘T ;. 441 $ *p-d 
 
 
 ^ » Oil ' ' ■ 1 . 'i’’i A' lisrXflLA’.v 
 
 .t' * 
 
 ' V.?it‘r^# ^ 
 
 ' 1 1 _ At •’' V 5 .vr,.;A 4 ^ f{ 4 ' * fj 
 
 • V ’■'"■^ • ' ■ .'‘^ ''Fv '■’*■. >11 ' ..■^ V;; 5 .;'-- ■ ' 
 
 t -JU.-vi: '•■. •■ .vm 4 *a ■: 
 
 * 4 ' A ^ 
 
 W 44 i » » 4 i« 
 •* 
 
 - I 
 
 jg ;^‘ ; vu^r- - • • * o<. - • ^ C'O * ."i: *:-ii ^ ' $ v« Ctbl 
 
 ■ ■•■ ‘ ■ ■ /I . • 'Hi ' ' 
 
 ‘ : , . a , *i . I a 3 d .at *. ' i ij.ci(U vi^e^if ■ • i,v svr^fi Jfj^t'.i:' 
 
 ' . It ■' ^ ’’■';J|A| >•'*■ ' ■''S^'’i 
 
 r i ' ' ' \ ' M ^ Hw j(‘ ■ ■* MX 
 
 t i.‘r--Civ :.^ 'C-.'- r-4»’? 'tIflljAlcf''' 
 
 ,^;'T J'.q v« * '‘ f 
 
 Vr^' 1 ‘ ' ' . " ’*V’l. ■ V ‘ / i 
 
 i 
 
 €l 
 
 • 'I . '* '.i^ -» i-.’ . 'I » X A 
 
 V •. !/l 
 
 r [ -.. W- i>r.;. i 0 4 tW/x^ fi . 
 
 '•' 51 / \ " . '• ■' ■''■■ . '’v • ‘ ""•‘S-li 
 
 ■■' I '.r ' -i-‘ ",;■, ,.;-; '«iyi 'r ■ ■''W''T' . '" 'T#: 
 
 fc.^ * ■*? • ■• ■ >’ ' '•. **"k£a *’' ' •a'/'V- — -I, »>. i»i ♦ir*A • ‘^3*’ ' i*i* j*.* 
 
 ^'-'V - ' ' • •*• fkVx.:»l ■ • ... . ■;•'.• ' ■.•<((>> W d 
 
 
"is a matter of discretion, and ever3^ state is by reason of its 
 
 territorial supremacy competent to exclude aliens from the whole, 
 
 or any part, of its territory. And it is only by an inference from 
 
 this competence that Great Britain, the United States of America, 
 
 and other states have made special laws according to which paupers 
 
 and criminals, as well as diseased and other objectionable aliens 
 
 6 
 
 are prevented from entering their territories." Rivier also said, 
 "The state is master in its own house. It may refuse to foreigners 
 access to its territory, interdict all immigration, or the immigra- 
 tion of certain individuals or of certain categories of individual^ 
 
 7 
 
 for example, nationals of certain countries." 
 
 From theoritical point of view, the arguments mentioned above 
 are very sound. But in pra.cxice, such wholesale exclusion is 
 impossible in normal times. In the first place, there is no coun- 
 try, not only in Europe, but in the world, since the opening of 
 
 no 
 
 China and Japan, in which there are,^foreigners both transient and 
 resident. After being permitted to enter the territory of which 
 they are not natives, they ought to have, and, indeed, they do have 
 the right to be secured from injury while therein. The ill-usage 
 of them whether by positive maltreatment or by denial of justice 
 
 6 
 
 will be resented by the state to which they owe their allegiance. 
 
 In the second place, hundreds of treaties of commerce and friend- 
 ship have been concluded between members in the Family of Nations 
 by means of which each is obliged to receive and protect the un- 
 
 6 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law. Volume I. §314 
 7 — 
 
 Hershey, Essentials of International Law. 257 N.52 
 
 & 
 
 Phillimore’s Internationa l Law , IV, 2-3 
 

 
 
 ! , *"'" , ■ «»■; ■ >?' . vjl:~-t»,'*t't<» 
 
 ' ‘ » . •'• ' ;• ', ' ■"'■* ' •K'-v.& H-, 
 
 it lis V : i(*‘'!.x>: MS' Ji vaii ly 
 
 feVrit 
 
 
 
 
 ''r,'" ■■' ■'• ■ ■■.. 
 
 0 ;:j$.i Jf^pSuiU':: 
 
 * jLi .U ■ ’• 4v -y, I ->6‘ iJi/ 'V^* ^ 
 
 -VI , . , v-*-^ »;. ii'^M AM '\ 
 
 
 c- V 
 
 i - . ■ ^ " '- ■• ■ ■ :V- li"* k^»‘--:^ ■ ■ -'■■''• V 
 
 |i /twr-*.: /. , 4'' » vt» V* fojf i 
 
 : ■ ". V- .' - - •• i,i. ’■ ’ '^i,',.n ,:> ' "■'"''^..'^^'‘-d< 
 
 \ :^i ■ ?'ii lift, vAtr .*r^v ilit- • ■ ■• •:«'^.3.ii[5i?/ 'm 
 
 ■ ■"’ •■'■' '* ' ' ' ■' t>rA* ■ ■■■*' 'l\' ■, '•.; ' ‘ ' ■ ^iriari ‘•^■* 
 
 ^ v;i4 .ill 
 
 'r ; 
 
 ir/)4 ‘i*. ""^ 
 
 ,A .i, S’"** ,, 
 
 
 '.jv. 
 
9 
 
 objectional subjects of the others. In the third place, there is 
 no doubt that in the case of expulsion of an alien who has been 
 dwelling in the territory of the expelling state for some length 
 of time and has established certain honorable busine.ss there, the 
 home state of the expelled individual is, by virtue of the right of 
 protection over its subject abroad, Justified in asking the reason 
 of the expulsion through diplomatic channel. The failure of the 
 expelling state to supply the reasons for such expulsion to the 
 home state of the expelled individual will constitute a very un- 
 friendly act though not an illegal one. It cannot be denied, how- 
 ever, that in spite of its international legality, an unfriendly 
 
 10 
 
 act can be rightly met by reprisal in form of retorsion. In the 
 fourth place, if a state imposes unreasonable restrictions upon 
 the admission of the subjects of a particular state or imposes 
 unequal condition upon their certain work as a laborer, or estab- 
 lish business or to practice certain profession, it will Justify 
 the state whose subjects are thus injured to resort to retorsive 
 legislation in order that the condition of its subjects who stay 
 abroad may be ameliorated. Or, it may resort to measures which 
 will make the subjects of the offending state suffer a correspond- 
 ing or equivalent disadvantage or inconvience if they happen to 
 
 11 
 
 reside or sojourn in its territory. 
 
 Finally "there should be no discrimination because of race or 
 IS 
 
 religion," History furnishes us many examples. The cases of Rosen- 
 
 9 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law, I, <§314 
 
 10 “ 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law, I, <§343 
 
 11 
 
 George B. Davis, Element of Internati o nal T.aw . 363-S64 
 IS 
 
 Hershey, Essentials of International Public Law . ^347 
 
' ;. ■' 4 ~ ' . ^ >,' '•• • . ." ■ , •_■ ^ ;rAflP ^'- 
 
 ■l^r.*i’ ,C .04 .^'VTLft' . > 
 
 '«'i' 
 
 ^ir 
 
 
 
 <• 
 
 w ■-■»' 
 
 “ ' 1 'i *,#■ \ ' 
 
 ^'i 
 
 *« 
 
 1, * X .‘- w.. 
 
 r 
 
 
 ,4' 
 
 • »' .-»3 
 
 
 .-,4 J '• ■■ ■■' *'i 
 
 * \i- 
 
 
 • - r ■^■. ./ --V-.- },.>.■ ^’.;X:.*A‘ * f‘U 6 1 > ri #ip 
 
 ’ -i'y • • >4;. * J ^ ^ 'i 
 
 tf JL .- - . jhrX*? 'C 
 
 ^ ^ . t' •* a 
 
 -•. |-\ .-*^ • • 4 > ^yi* 
 
 -V.v..r 
 
 , . . i, '.-i r» ,l?> 
 
 • .,* .• _.•■'» 
 
 
 yp''^»#’n'''' 
 
 ■t fKi. 
 
 
 •'*?>'■;.■ ' u':. i. • ,.;-c..o ^'Ovvy^vai. •.:»<; H 
 
 
 p» 
 
 i ; - V I 
 
 I - .w ; ;-f,<iir^.cjt.-. '.<5 • . •'.* r '. 1144 >wv* £•■ iT* •.’|« j^ 
 
 iV ' ' ’ '' *' * *' I ' '''''/■' 4 i ' *f^'* 
 
 •i'.iij^*^'. ::' iH o* ou, 
 
 ■ *’ *. ■■'r;^X‘t' ^ * V .1 -.'* ‘ '’''''Vi 'Hi IV "‘ *.»'l 
 
 ■ ,u: 
 
 
 
 .; j.’ •. ^ \ 
 
 ^V-Vvw*- <o»*3 . - s.^TfK . ; .0 1* ^ i- .f*A^:r.v'lrW^^ '|| 
 
 ' ^' ‘ ■ ^ \ ' ■* '. • ' -^ ■ :• ■ 
 
 vv «f ■• ;.; n 5* *■: »/i i:l<? ■'■ *r'm 
 
 
 •• '■- ^ *« *■- i : :■ - •4i 'X^ ■ 
 
 ■ t*- • ' ■-ir^-‘y-'-- .u,- ;,♦■ • "•■‘'t ,.: -m 
 
 4 . 
 
 r..^ -.- 
 
 i ■ 
 
 ft • i-, i.;-- ■0','t .*f , i; /". . *5|j>t.> -J ,Sf*# •■'■•• ?!■ -^ifH 
 
 >i ; i\f . '.V )‘ v\, ■ '^i,'-; '‘Vvi <'»■ C . V 
 
 - .CjI f . .■•<^' 2 "'" .tV-' 
 
 it.. 
 
30 
 
 13 14 
 
 Strauss and of Wilczyuski are two of the most conspicaous. 
 
 The case of Rosenst rauss . - In 1873 Theodore Hosenst ra-uss, 
 a citizen of the United States who had since 1863 settled at Khar- 
 koff as a mechanic and merchant of the second guild was required 
 hy the Russic-n authorities to obtain a license of the first guild, 
 costing about 600 roubles, instead of a license of the second guildi 
 costing 150 roubles which he had obtained during the nine preceed- 
 ing years, as well as to sign a writing to ask for future license 
 unless he got a permission to continue his business from the Minis- 
 ter of Interior, The sole reason for the action of the Russian 
 authorities was because Rosenstrauss believed in the Hebrew relig- 
 ion. He was told by the license commissions that only Russian 
 Hebrews could engage in business at Kharkoff and that foreigners of 
 that faith were excluded from enjoying the same privilege. Rosen- 
 strauss could do nothing under such condition but invoke the 
 interposition of the American legation at St. Petersburg. Mr. 
 Jewell, the American Minister at St. Petersburg, made a strong 
 protest to the Russian government. As a result, a satisfactory 
 solution was achieved. A permission was granted by the Russian 
 authorities to Rosenstrauss to remain in Kharkoff and continue his 
 business there, provided he obtained a license of the first guild. 
 
 The case of Wilczyuski is equally interesting. In 1660 Mr. 
 Marx Wilczyuski, an American citizen of Jewish birth, was forced 
 to leave St. Petersburg with all other native Jews. Mr Foster, 
 the American Minister at St. Petersburg, brought the case to the 
 attention of the Russian government and requested that Wilczyuski 
 might be permitted to return to Russia. The result was that Mr. 
 
 IsTu 
 
 Moore, International Law Digest, IV, <5554 
 

 
 ■v' ^ ■ 
 
 *0 
 
 . rrz s xaFA^i^^ 
 
 mSL 2 
 
 'W^?w « yl i *i\r‘w wi >iS/ v,» t>3<V' XP 
 
 I 
 
 • r , 
 
 ' Ai-i.»,«f 4 * i ■ 
 
 I I ' « • . .. • !•■' • »rt 
 
 7 j v-^ ' 16 
 
 » 7 t, ' 
 
 ] fr :• 
 
 .!-«i^j*>iitiio^. ■ .ii' a! - . ,;.i 
 
 t.- •' ;' ' - - ' . .. . jKir’' ' -.i ‘‘ 
 
 i-i'i iu n -. » 
 
 , 4: J I t» 'Tl M 1 
 
 .. V • 
 
 ■ ^ ^ iXi :>fyi.ttii'i a ^<s ■tlo’^'. 
 
 
 .V i 
 
 »rii y/ 
 
 ..‘I .•■■ 
 
 ‘ 1 ? 
 
 ■ - • \ y,.-^ sijl ’ J. .* '■ ^ ^ I^ifi d6p^' ■ 
 
 -» oaX«i ^ x^''9is ^x 
 
 ;i! i 
 
 wa 
 
 ^ ,■ ”>■ 
 
 'i . J iioi^nirtivq drt M^.Xfi;ir- 
 
 " *i '' 1 1 ^ k» I B^llk 4 » 
 
 
 I it^ *<!► f ( • I X * ■ 
 
 .< / . a xpiji: te; . tot i !njr,t 
 
 Y’’ ^ ' .f '•' ’tSj? * ^ ' ' * ^.' ^"’■' r" 
 
 ■ s '. i ~ ’ '" \' ' 
 
 i -r* , C '-\ ^’l 
 
 '>*P 
 
 -V '?*;,!?? \ 
 
 i 
 
 •'iii 1 51 /d; ;r X '; 
 
 • ■■'ij »■ *' 'If' ^ Y 4 I ^ ~ "^ ' ' ^ *y 
 
 •5^1 ' •'■- 6’^ , 4J- ^ 
 
 “^i35 ■.AvVi^.i .V. : i^,yif 'i»«i/ila 
 
 Sj^""^*- '• ,/ . T - -vr- I. .•« r ' 
 
 . ..’^ \ ,! v^ii -..r V . ■ “i ‘ 
 
 ■*i_ ' ' ' L '■ ’’ ■ lip . X • '»;.•. '..•, 
 
 ! i '1^4-^ *. , ' S* ’ ’ 
 
 Bwiiii4i4 r< * j w u ?. 4 !- ^ lie?*, ^aajb*i?i0t* 
 
 1 ■ ■ ■'■'^^ f, V, .. - '.%,: .*': i,; ■ /I) ,j; ,,,?!^ .J>-r '•'■■ 
 
 ■JLi v-4“ .fl.i.^ .•;ti'V. ..j ,.;»«a«i _-^’ 'Mtfiii Ji«ji>WiiVC'.’ ' 
 
 r" *;- Mf '■' :,/ 5 .T. i ■ , ' 1 •, > » r.; • ■ .j^ i • 
 
 .yiMf%.$iAii.> » .’♦i i ’/ j,.p <j: Jr^ 4^2voa,m'- ,'0tojr4,«J»«n W 
 
 ' ' ' '-X, ' ’ ■ , '' "' ■ ■ '■' >i^'‘ 
 
 • ; i. ■ . fT r i ; t r?.' 7 r t) u . *i '1 j f f I l' j.fA»0 1 % pfM fiU ^ X^ eiT(^o^JP^,A 
 
 i I » «|’’2 . I I*. 
 
 V<- » .a. 
 
 ' «X24£«jr ' • - i ■ vf 4* 1 4i.’ H < c : i 'a J 4.-5 
 
 ' ’ ■! Sr •■ * ‘ ^ '• ' • lii ' ■ -, ■ ■« 
 
 ■ filP 
 
 ^f . J^.'wi- i 
 
 - * >. ( 
 - . A ' t A 
 

 
 
 hi 
 
 
 . 1 1 ' f ■. . . V 
 
 : ..■- 
 
 1 11 
 
 
 
 ', . -A 
 
 • 
 
 t 
 
 
 VI. 
 
 1 * 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 m^Y "* 
 
 Ji • iM 
 
 . ;•■ . 
 
 .&dv: 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 J -> : .' ,j» ^ JPiJif?;- €t%Wf'u|<«0 J, . 1 1^.‘ ■ j 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■“..,1 • '> ■ *' • '■»■ ' ' '} t •"•>•■ ''^ ^'.“^-iC', ., 
 
 - ; Xf - ’ *i’.rf^ '"' 'ff 
 
 t.»» I - .. J L»t 543f4^ 
 
 _ ’ ..(■■ "V*'' ' * '■’ ► 
 
 '-i u* ,t‘ X*' ;** -» 1 A/ 3 ^ ■ 3 c. ^pu<f^v 
 
 
 ■ ,• . 14 
 
 • )i^.- 
 
 
 9.*t ‘,r; & ji‘, X- ;!tt%-«t^a3.s^4dA 
 
 j.;,^d- t ,\ i'\,,Hu\. Mil. 
 
 1 t ''list 
 
 >t>T* jra^f.^^ifticsf?' 
 
 '**''''^.,‘1’ *..:\' ’r/f \ .. '■■> '■’’■'"SHI 
 
 ..V'A’H'' 
 
 1^, 
 
 •Ai-' ■ t J, *1 V ^ i i V\ ’4Sl - ♦ "kaf i; . t*^‘ IV < 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 £d r. c ^••y4* e.i; tf;' v>A-Jj)cjU' 
 
 * * ■'T. . ' 
 
 ^ . -i 
 
 - V ,'’»i me?r.:: . ■ ’ QIIWm 
 
 lvi#4;;x;_ t ih * (tix0 JUI 
 
 r,t.' rafi^roWi vX/.*;*f( aac ■\cri*,^o ;i 
 
 , ^ , * * • f ' f . • j ., ■ ■ / CJff, 
 
 
 't? ii*3 ,v ^*/. 
 
 '■ <WI K 
 
 
 
 l»l 
 
 '/ •. 
 
 
 lii,- ;'r " ** 
 
 flVi ' ^‘ 
 
 n 
 
 '’? ; 
 
 
to deny or to overturn justice." Mr, Moore also says, "the law of 
 nations does not allow reprisals, except in cases of violent in- 
 juries directed and supported by the state, and the denial of just- 
 
 17 
 
 ice by the tribunal and the prince." 
 
 In 1794, the Jay Treaty was concluded between Great Britain 
 and the United States. It was resented by France as a measure 
 nullifying to a great extent the special advantages enjoyed by her 
 under the treaty of 1776 and the consular convention of 1766 by 
 which France had claimed great privileges in American ports with 
 regard to the setting out of privateers, the bringing in of cap- 
 tures and the exercising of prize jurisdiction. Accordingly, in 
 December, 1796, France adopted a measure of reprisals by sending 
 a notice through her minister for Foreign Affairs to the American 
 Minister to Paris, Mr. Pinckney, telling him that the Directory 
 would no longer recognize nor receive a minister plenipotentiary 
 from the United States until after the reparation claimed by 
 France upon the American government was made. The French also said 
 
 that this determination was not going to affect the continuance of 
 
 16 
 
 the affection between the French Republic and the American people. 
 
 On the 7th of July, 1796, President Adams approved of an act 
 by which it was declared that, as the treaties between France and 
 the United States had been repeatedly violated by the former, the 
 reasonable demand for reparation refused; and as there was still 
 being pursued against the United States a system of predatory 
 
 16 
 
 Woolsey, International Law, 162 
 
 17 
 
 Moore, International Law Disest, Vol. VII. 120 
 
 18 ^ ~ 
 
 St owe 11 and Munro, International Cases . War and Neutrality . 3 
 
2>3 
 
 violence, in contradictory to the treaties and hostile to the 
 rights of a free and independent nation, the United States was of 
 right freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties, 
 and of the consul-ar convention and, under this circumstance, these 
 compacts should ”not henceforth ... .be regarded as legally obliga- 
 tory on the government or citizens of the United States." At the 
 next session of the congress, the commercial relations between 
 these two countries were interrupted; authority was given to the 
 President to exchange French citizens who might be captured by the 
 United States, to summon the array and to adopt acts in relation to 
 hostilities . 
 
 (b) Disproportion. - The justification of reprisals being 
 
 that they are used as means of avoiding the graver alternative of 
 
 war, it must in principle be conceeded that anything short of 
 
 actual war is permissible for sufficient cause. The pressure put 
 
 upon the offending states must not be more severe than the injury 
 
 received by the offended state. If the acts which may be done by 
 
 Way of reprisals cannot be in limits, or if they depart widely 
 
 from the rules of peace, the blame will be thrown upon the state 
 
 making use of them. It is generally agreed that to make reprisals 
 
 either disproportioned to the provocation, or in excess of what 
 
 19 
 
 is needed to obtain redress, is to commit a wrong." 
 
 "Reprisals, or the punishment of one ma,n for the acts of an- 
 other," says Hall, "is a measure in itself so repugnamt to justice, 
 and when hasty or excessive is so apt to increase rather than 
 abate the irregularities of a war, that belligerents are univers- 
 
 19 
 
 Hall, International Law, (Sth Edition), 363 
 
3 ^ 
 
 ally considered to be bound not to resort to reprisals except 
 under the pressure of absolute necessity, and then not by way of 
 revenge, but only in cases and to the extent by which an enemy 
 may be deterred from a repetition of his offence," 
 
 It shows in the foregoing paragraphs that disproportional 
 reprisals are both condemmed in peace as well as in war. 
 
 (?) Privateering. - It had been pointed out that the prac- 
 tice of granting special letter of reprisals to individuals and 
 authorizing them to seize at sea an equivalent for loses from 
 subjects of the offending state has entirely disappeared at the 
 present time. Indeed, we can rarely see a single instance of it 
 since Cromwell. 
 
 One of the most interesting instance was found in the life 
 and death contest between the Normans and the English, In 1398, 
 two sailors, the one Norman, the other English happened to quarrel 
 with each other in the port of Bayonne. They fought at the begin- 
 ning with their fists. On account of weakness, the Englishman 
 stabbed his opponent with a knife. The civil tribunal was request- 
 ed to intervene, but being neglected by the magistrates, the Nor- 
 mans sought help from their King Philip le Bel who, with unpardon- 
 able neglect, permitted them to take their own revenge. They 
 immediately set out to sea and capturing the first English ship 
 they could find, hung up many sailors and some dogs at the mast- 
 head. The English retaliated without securing authority from theii 
 government. Things went from bad to worse when one nation made 
 alliance with the Irish and Dutch and the other with the Flemings 
 and Genoese. Two hundred Norman vessels scouted on the English' 
 sea and killed all the seamen they could find. Their enemies in 
 
- 7 TT 
 
 
 ft. rw^’n V 
 -' Si '‘.; 
 
 ^ j i' t ijli 5 ^ fit' ^ io'b /'<|i^‘C, "i; ’ 
 
 ' ’'It • .V^ ' £u/ y xy, af? 
 
 «j'^' !'■• • • ■ iUm., ■•■ ‘••^■'•^ -A. V ■■■■• v**. 
 
 M 
 
 ■‘'", : 1 ! 
 
 4 i<i *■ ’ 
 
 ■t;l^ — 
 
 \ ‘t'>V 
 
 
 a* k*T 
 
 
 ■vV' 
 
 .OH" 
 
 b f . 
 
 :: , ■fi.V'V^AW 
 
 
36 - 
 
 return sent out a strong fleet to destroy the Norman vessels and 
 
 capture a greater part of the Normans. Not only no quarter was 
 
 given to the victims but the captors massacred them to the amount 
 
 of fifteen thousand men. The question became too big for private 
 
 hands, and the governments of both nations began to interpose. 
 
 ”It terminated in an unfortunate war which, by the loss of Guienne, 
 
 entailed upon the two nations an endless train of hostilities till 
 
 SO 
 
 it was recovered.” 
 
 Such kind of retaliation and contre-retaliation can never 
 
 extinguish the fire of revenge but increase them instead. It is 
 
 brutal and inhuman. It cannot reduce the nations or states in 
 
 quarrel to terms of peace. It cannot prevent war but hastens it. 
 
 Owing to these circumstances, the present practice, or law of 
 
 nations, permits privateering or private war by sea only in time of 
 
 21 
 
 war, never in time of peace. 
 
 is) The Confiscation of Private Property. - It was a common 
 practice in the early day to sell immediately the property seized 
 by Way of reprisals, pay the injured individual compensation out 
 of the proceeds, and hand over the balance to the state of the 
 aggressors. The reprisals made by Cromwell against France on be- 
 half of an English Quaker is the example. But at the present time, 
 the offended state would hold the property seized from the offend- 
 ing state until a satisfactory reparation is mads for the alleged 
 
 injury; if this is done the property is restored, but if it results 
 
 22 
 
 in war, the property is confiscated. 
 
 20 
 
 Moore, International Law Diisest, Volume VII, 13i 
 
 21 
 
 Moore, Int ernational Law Digest . Volume VII, i22 
 
 22 " 
 
 Risley, The Law of ?/ar , 56 
 
/ 
 
 
3 ^ 
 
 Thus to seize the property of the offending state 'by way of 
 reprisals and hold it in such a manner is absolutely justifiable. 
 But, on the other hand to take the property of private individuals 
 as security for the reparation of public wrongs is indefensible, 
 except on the ground that a state and its subjects are so far one 
 as to give it a just claim on their property for public purpose, 
 or that, as being stated by Bluntschli, the offending state has 
 
 23 
 
 unjustly seized the property of the subjects of the injured state. 
 Therefore, as when a man’s property in form of land is taken for 
 public roads, he is entitled to have claim for compensation, so, 
 when a man loses his property by the violent measure adopted by 
 the foreign state against his own country, not he, but his state 
 ought to make his loss good. 
 
 To confiscate a loan payable to private subjects by way of 
 reprisals is also unjustifiable. In 1744 when Great Britain was 
 at War with France and Spain, Prussia maintained her neutrality 
 very strictly. Towards the end of 1’74S, however, Prussian subjects 
 began to take French cargoes by their ships and use neutral vessels 
 of other nations to carry their own trade. Consequently several 
 of their ships were captured and condemned by the British govern- 
 ment. By way of reprisals, the King of Prussia confiscated a loan 
 of £80,000 dued to certain British subjects which was secured by 
 •the revenues of Silesia. The British government upheld the prin- 
 ciples embodied in a long and celebrated document prepared by Sir 
 George Lee and Mr. Murray (afterwards Lord Mansfield), and said 
 that with regard to reprisals, they v;ere only allowable in two 
 cases - where a violent wrong is convicted and upheld by the public 
 
 23 
 
 Woolsey. International Law^, 182-163, N.2 
 
W .v?v;rij‘^ tv; A vx * 7/«4 , 56 ’ ■'^■ 
 
 iff*'-- ■. . ' ^ “ '1 ■■ ;“ ^ s. ' ' ' 'i 
 
 '■ --L »U- ■ JW KT ..' ,4yy<;-.;.mS; r v 
 
 . wiiffc ■^■:»iL*:.i ^di :« t ;^: tL 
 
 V ■■ ■t ■ iB.Vi -’^•3*^- .{’• -‘ ■M' t 
 
 <' ■ ^ 'H; 
 
 »»n 
 
 .■/i ‘‘ '■ ' ■'. - - ‘ - V- .•;.'? ' K J " i> ' 
 
 '- ’ V-*f ^ C - ._L *:_ 
 
 ■ = i -*» i 
 
 - >1 - , . ' 
 
 :ly %ficf 4i^ur-- Ji 
 
 ti.r jjt T - 
 
 -i;.. 4^.44 J 
 
 
 
 . -* 
 
 « • 
 
 * 1 ^ % 
 
 c • 
 
 > y i t * ■ ■* ■ - * t^>» 4 *'-*i 
 
 •' . j;t». i ■ * • ' 
 
 
 t.'i 
 
 iftC/ 
 
 ' Bi -.i y*.. jj«. .A ^ '4 ’‘‘.T^ ■ .''if- 
 
37 
 
 autiiority, or when a justice had been denied in the courts, or by 
 the government of a state and that in no case can it be lawful 
 to confiscate a debt payable to private individuals by way of 
 reprisals for wrongs done by their government. 
 
 The matter was finally settled by the Treaty of Westminster, 
 1756, by which Great Britain paid Prussia £30,000 in discharge of 
 all claims under condition that the latter would pay off the loan 
 according to the original contract. 
 
 •'The British view as to reprisals and the justice of confis- 
 cating debts to meet public claims,” says Risley in his "Law of 
 War’,'" met and still meets, with universal approval." In speaJjing 
 of the same case Taylor says "it is now generally conceeded, as 
 
 a matter of policy, if not of principle, that a public debt is 
 
 34 
 
 secure against reprisals in peace and war," 
 
 (9) The Viols.tion of Contra.ct. - Should a contract be violat- 
 ed by one of the parties and should satisfaction as provided for 
 (by the contractual stipulation) be refused, it is justifiable for 
 the party wronged to adopt measures of reprisal. This involves, 
 however, a seizure of the goods of the defaulting party only. The 
 seizure of persons will not be allowed. The goods seized consti- 
 tute a pledge by which satisfaction for the wrong may be secured, 
 
 35 
 
 if the verdict eventua,lly went agadnst the defaulter. 
 
 (10) Hostile Embargo, - There are two kinds of embargoes: 
 the pacific embargo and the hostile embargo. The pacific embargo 
 involves nothing more than a detention of ships in port and it has 
 
 34 
 
 Taylor, International Public Law, 443 
 
 35 ' 
 
 Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece 
 and Rome . Volume I, 140-141 
 
'.ft"' • ' 
 
 b E? .’f ' *' ■ 
 ,Yr w *tn^:>; 
 
 
 ■V'.ry*i'V 
 
 ' Lf- .- .^ J , ... 
 
 » ■ 
 
 
 a' 
 
 ,, ■' "' . ' ■’" '"'v ■^ ’■ 
 
 "iv v>’ r;x/-.*ri4 t- J ■! ■ 
 
 . '.'^6; t-"' ' ' ' ..i ' VJ/ :¥! !■' .• t'.' V ,v' :. ' -WJi/L- ■ '• ‘ 
 
 jpi'*^ '• ‘ t ^ ’?..7 ♦ 5^$* v 4.c xkv'< vi; 
 
 r^ '■• .1 I ? 
 
 ■'1 ■ ’ *■ > * ^^r •* if V , 
 
 I V. ■ M- • ' V. t X'i JsW» X 9 « f * ' ■ 
 
 ?'V 
 
 
 ■S'- 
 
 
 V ■ 
 
 ■^ .■•• ■■ 
 
 K- S 
 
 ^ ^ > A • •^.Mt> y-.,r :-A'ir i>, 
 
 ■ ■a:'J ' - ■- !■■■'>■ '^■^i',' '^®> 
 
 ■; «! 
 
 £S^^•^ . W' S?S rtJ-- • «‘ ? 
 
 *' tti. * % p tt ,' ' « iS •’ 1 :*^*4t>V 0 / : X *! V ^ 
 
 -"•- .’ '-•' ■ ■ • . '. , '«,.- ■ : 
 i ' ; %f],. .. g’l'. . :; -V’ , ti^ iH 
 
 ' .' l<. ‘^■: • •''J'^- 
 
 '■ '' 'ir 
 
 't;*i'',J.t ;.■^ -;a- ■■|^Air,,,._r, ;.va 
 
 ■':■•'•■ • , ■' -to’^ ■ '' •' " '■ ‘•’^¥ '■’'■ ■ • ’T 
 
 :cii5i.,B# 
 
 . 'JV^- 
 
 
 
 IV 
 
 K>xjvrvn».vtta e »- . -r^ 
 
2>S 
 
 no necessary connection with any atteinpt to redress an injury 
 received. But hostile embargo, on the other hand, consists in the 
 detention of ships in the attempt to redress a wrong. The best 
 illustration is as follows. After the rupture of the Peace of 
 Amiens, Great Britain believed that Holland was only waiting for a 
 chance to join Fre.nce against her. An embargo was issued to detain 
 all Dutch vessels anchoring at British ports for the purpose of 
 inducing the Dutch to give up the scheme of alliance with Napoleon, 
 It was an embargo in form of reprisals. The aim was not realized. 
 War broke out and the legal question of the original seizure of 
 Dutch vessels came before a prize court. Lord Stowell held the 
 view that the embargo was at first equivocal in its legal aspects, 
 and that its real character could be determined by events following 
 it. If war occurred, its commencement would make the seizures bel- 
 ligerent captures from the first. If satisfaction was made and 
 friendship restored between the two states, the original seizures 
 meant nothing more than a temporary sequestration so that the 
 proprietory rights of the property could not be disturbed. 
 
 As time went on, commercial interests grew between nation 
 and nation, and when a sense of justice gradually developed, the 
 practice of hostile embargo was discontinued. In the modern times, 
 belligerents have gon^ a step further by allowing the enemy’s 
 merchant vessels to leave their ports at the commencement of war. 
 
 (ll) Hostije Tariff. - Although a country has an absolute 
 freedom or complete right to lay duties on foreign goods entering 
 into her port, yet from the view point of international comity, a 
 hostile tariff should not be laid against friendly nations. Mr, 
 J.S. Mill said, ”a country cannot be expected to renounce the 
 
T' ■ ' ■ l.tVSli 1 
 
 
 • •’*- v4*,)f 2 <>:■'»■> ->^‘^!e^w'; iv,?/ '‘;T‘#’WTOOl^ li Vj 
 
 r' '«I ■-•■■' '• '- »■.'■'■ ■ 
 
 W 4vo-'-i\ aial; ' *■ - -- - • ■ - ^ ^ 
 
 ' ► • •.,*f«l I ;^e'u'tf^jurirtr 
 
 
 
power of taxing foreigners unless foreigners will in return prac- 
 tice towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which 
 a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties 
 
 imposed by other countries on its commodities, is to impose corres- 
 
 26 
 
 ponding revenue duties on theirs." It is apparent that he admits 
 
 the right of retaliation against hostile tariff. It was by this 
 in 
 
 right that ,^1697-1700, Fla.nders retaliated because of the English 
 prohibition of Flemish lace by excluding English woolens. It was 
 again in exercising the same right that Brazil once threatened to 
 tax German manufacturers bacause the latter had raised the duty 
 on coffee, which greatly affected interests of Brazil as her coffee 
 had been largely consumed in Germany. 
 
 26 
 
 John M. Robertson, Trade and Tariffs . 221 
 

 
 ‘ m ^ ,.r ; ", -isi^ -.ei4i4-io4ilii£j«'<>'?ox'&At^^^^ 
 
 Ilf .io : i ;-*'ciB#»/.ii4i«rtt-. '*- ‘' 
 
 
 jA'j i .; •»,. j $h- . VI. Jf-. £ * mIv 
 
 Lr 
 
 
 ' „ < ''’^ '-'■ 'VM;®;* -'.' 
 
 ,:-m< 
 
 j ’ »• . ^ T 
 
 ' '"‘li 
 
 I ■f'^it' 
 
 </-<■. il%P ' t£ 'yj- 
 
 ■■'"<' • . v;Mk|Sre 
 
 ■■ „ .V' -V f-'.',, ^^>£il&:t'i‘ia» ’4Sli32?*r,««lff^ 
 
 «cMsi!-'^',^ ■ -« >$mm: 
 
 y.‘ 
 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 ^ o 
 
 The Justification of Reprisals in War - 
 Conclusi on 
 
 As reprisals are important in times of peace, so they are 
 important in times of war. It is true that in peace time some 
 kinds of reprisals may he iusti liable while others may not he. This 
 is also true in case of reprisals in war. In the following para- 
 graphs particular attention will he paid to the discussion of the 
 laws of war in relation to reprisals a.nd the just and unjust appli- 
 cation of war reprisals. 
 
 The question of whether any limit at all can he placed on 
 breaches of the laws of war hy way of reprisals is very important. 
 In relation to this question, the Russian proposals which formed 
 the basis of discussion in the Brussels Conference can never fail 
 to arrest our earnest attention. The proposals enhodied in the 
 draft were as follows: 
 
 ^69 "ReprisaJs are admissible in extreme cases only, due re- 
 gard being paid as far as shall he possible to the laws of humanity, 
 when it shall have been unquestionably proved that laws and customs 
 of war have been violated by the enemy and that they have had re- 
 course to measures condemned by the law of nations." 
 
 $70 "The selection of the means and extent of reprisals 
 should be proportionate to the degree of the infraction of law com- 
 mitted by the enem.y. Reprisals that are disproportionately severe 
 are contrary to the rules of international law." 
 

 'V - 
 
 
 
 f . ■ . * rfSi, ''V'"^/ n , ' ■<:■". *'j' . ^-* 'f<..i>., 
 
 IT *‘ 
 
 ■ 'V* ' 'V f.-'’, ''^■^■^‘« ?l 
 
 ^ ^ i. -^ • jfj,,! ii-i^ ^Uspf ’Ife 
 
 tl....,.w -“^ 
 
 . .!■• . - w» 
 
 ■♦/♦•p ' *'• i:V^ - *■ "■'I 
 
 
 
 
 .<!.n '1^5 
 
4/ 
 
 $71 ’’Reprisals shall be allowed only on the authority of the 
 corrunander-in- chief, who shall likewise determine the degree of th^ir 
 severity and their duration.” 
 
 The Brussels Conference declined to discuss even such a moder- 
 ate proposition for they felt that reprisals of a severe character 
 could not be discussed calmly. The subject was dropped. 
 
 The Hague Regulations also contain nothing on this subject. 
 
 The delegates of the Hague Convention thought that it was better to 
 leave the rules concerning ’’the usages established between civilized 
 nations” to humanity and conscience. 
 
 But the Manua-1 of the Institute of International Law formu- 
 lated the following articles which indicate great progress in the 
 development of the law of war concerning reprisals. 
 
 85 "ReprisaJls are forbidden whenever the wrong which has af- 
 forded ground of complednt has been repaired." 
 
 86 ”In the grave cases in which reprisals become an imper- 
 ative necessity, their nature and scope must never exceed the meas- 
 ure of the infraction of the laws of war committed by the enemy." 
 
 "They can only be made with the authorization of the command- 
 er-in chief," 
 
 "They must in all cases be consistent with the rules of human- 
 2 
 
 ity and morality." 
 
 We must observe that the second clause in $69 of the Russian 
 proposition for the Brussels Conference, "as far as shall be possi- 
 ble," Was replaced by, "in all cases," in the last clause of article 
 
 1 
 
 Westlake, International Law . Part II, War, 112 
 
 2 
 
 Westlake, International Law . Part II, War, 113 
 
45 , 
 
 66 in the Manual of the Institute of International Law, and that 
 article 65 was new. 
 
 Nevertheless, the ManuaJ of the Institute of International 
 
 Law did not give us the precise definition of the right of re-prisals. 
 
 in War. The defect has called for a zealous examination of the 
 
 principle on which it rests, in order that no false theoretical 
 
 view may induce nations to practice the reprisals in excess. The 
 
 principle is thus put by Lueder in the following form. 
 
 "The right not to observe the laws of war exists in the case 
 
 of retorsion because, according to known maxims, non-fulfilment by 
 
 one party deprives that party of the right to claim fulfilment by 
 
 the other. At least this may be the case in war where, if the vio- 
 
 IcLtions of the laws of war by the enemy were passed without retali- 
 
 a.tion, a belligerent would be at a disadvantage and worse off than 
 
 his enemy who was guilty of the violations, with reference to the 
 
 end which has to be striven for by all means, namely breaking down 
 
 3 
 
 the determination of the other side and gaining the victory." 
 
 The main point of this principle may be shortened into one 
 simple sentence, nacfiely in time of war a mutual obligation is dis- 
 solved by the failure of one party to perform it. Mr. Oppenheirn 
 holds that when usages of wa^rfare have, by custom or convention, 
 become laws of warfare, they are binding upon all belligerents un- 
 der all circumstances except in the case of reprisals as retaliatio:: 
 
 against a belligerent for illegitimate acts of warfare committed by 
 
 4 
 
 the members of his armed force or his other subjects. 
 
 3 
 
 Westlake, International Law, Part II, War, 114 
 
 4 
 
 Oppenheirn, International Law . Volume II, 76 
 
nj "5 Y ^ 
 
 
 r TT ” 
 
 y 
 
 • =»;jk^rn>vv >i V “'i', ., 'iJv* ■ ^ V V# 
 
 ■ r*. ’ . ' ' . .■■'■’ 
 
 Fiv ■ " ■ ■ '■'•% ■ . ' '"wws.ij; 
 
 t>|Ri>. :j/i» .«••.•.* :■ , ,iu?.-i'.>, ; 'y? j,affc4>,"r 
 
 r'u .' -u )ti ^ri-‘.)lj ’(ttfV : .v';4|^v4> " ».. 
 
 « V*4^«rt - 'a^*' 
 
 
 V* 
 
 
 _ 1 .' ' ,J 'iv ' ,_j .-V ‘'‘ ■ 
 
 
 ■ « '» 
 
 
 
 v4ii4M 
 
 
 ^ • . , i •> 
 
 /.I 
 
 ,i‘ ^ 
 
 
 ® - ". ■ r . '•':-^> ■'' > -'y'S-- ■'<*•'■* . 
 
 ^ , ■**,>' 7 ‘ . V.-vit’ ^ V '/Vtkr'*" ^ ' * '■ ' 
 
 V :- ' • ,•'„ ■ • .rv- '.- •■ ■• ’ V-'/v^.,'. :,^‘ \ 
 
 •» • 
 
 
 0 :•» , -1 
 
 - ' ^ V 
 
 •Xi • ' 
 
 I ^ .,-• ,,..* , ,*- '>;’.l 
 
 '. •>i5r.' ,' ^' . , '^ ( .-_ jt' t,' ? ■ : -•'*‘ ’I?. ' ,ii«‘ aV, ' '■ •• S- a ■?• ‘ "1^ y<^ 
 
 \ \ f '‘ *i' ■ '.’ s "*'' ?. V*|* -V*’*-' 7’ • rT ’ 
 
 - 1 ^ '-‘-t 't^‘" ' ^'^‘V *f-V V 
 
 'l' >*.jr .•■•''*, ; . ■ -r 
 
 [♦ a :« 
 
 ' •• ■' *, j >, •- i .AnL - '.] vl.y V 
 
 ; ■. 1 '.; ifN V ^ ;i ^ <- \a>^ i r j 
 
43 
 
 Messrs, Wilson and Tucker also say that retaliation and other 
 
 methods once resorted to are now prohibited, except as punishment 
 
 ■ 5 
 
 for the breach of the laws of war. If a state wrongs another in 
 times of peace, the injured state may secure redress by threatening 
 or opening hostilities; but when the two nations have already en- 
 gaged in war this method of redress is not possible. If the laws 
 of war are violated three methods of obtaining satisfaction may be 
 used. 
 
 Cl) The injured belligerent may punish the offending enemy 
 soldiers or nationals, 
 
 (s) He may protest against the other belligerent and claim 
 compensation. 
 
 ( 3 ) If the actual offenders cannot be reached and if satis- 
 faction has been refused, the injured state may resort to reprisal 
 The last method of securing compliance with the laws of war 
 ought to be adopted only in last resort. Reprisals survived from 
 the lex tations- an eye for an eye, a limb for a limb, a life for 
 a life. They are the saddest among ail the necessities of war. 
 
 Many examples of the most atrocious cruelties committed under the 
 pretext of reprisals may be easily found in history. Yet one can- 
 not see how they can be abolished. 
 
 ”The whole international code,” sa.ys Wheaton, ”is formed upon 
 reciprocity.” If the established usages of war have been violated 
 by one belligerent, his adversary has the duty and right to retali- 
 e,te for the purpose of preventing further excesses. In all events, 
 
 5 
 
 Wilson and Tucker, Internati onal Law , 7th Edition, 265 
 
 6 
 
 Spaight, War Ri^ht on Land , 461-462 
 
 CD CO 
 

 
 .Vi' 1 i ■’ yi^i4v 
 
 " 1 ^ 
 
 
 
 *1 
 
 i#»tj!ot j»ia; 5 sa^^ *1 
 
 
 y> V w* 
 
 1 ' '1 
 
 t.M -.fstTi^:- V .■•<.v;ci. ' ..t^"* W vw^; ! 
 
 ’•■ ■? !{*a' • *'. * ' •"■'.. .«■ . ’ ViJ,'. ■.;./.>>■ ■ V •■• 
 
 ^ 3 P^' 
 
 il i 
 
 ■+jr' 
 
 
 / \'^i- ' ■ ' 
 
 'flr ' I ' ■ ^- '■ '' ' -c’ ^ -^ ;■ 
 
 (I? V-- • ‘ , ■ ■ S _ » . ^ ;., . JHT 
 
 .• 'c. - . . >"*4 j 1 -.'MJ't ..1^4/ V^%i tff I h 
 
 ■r .' r •’■ « : ' ■ 'V . -.-'ll tv 
 
 »'-■■' ■ ■■• --•■*< ’ ;: ..'vi •- 
 
 *? '.Q^ - is 
 
 
 
 ^w'r-. ;* js , - *,fi :\ 
 
 ... , v'.‘' 
 
 '(-P C- w.i i«#X' ; 
 
 
 f.,!? 
 
 
 i,^nz . ^ii<5 : n 1 1 ^ ,'i4e y ^ -I t ^ 
 
 .rv, -■ >' ., ■ . . . % ■ ■ . , S” ' I ' 
 
 
 4.’-'i''5‘4^‘jn , ’• • ^’»{-'i r , • • ^ ' 7W'" .\Wj , :, ' r* *” (I 
 
 5 ' ■ ^ . ' ■ ■• ■ ^ ^ ' -'^ ^ ^ ^’f ‘ 
 
 ^ iL-^ f / .!- i ;.., V iJui) >rr~ t 
 
 * |P'tf‘ _ - ,. . ^ '■ ■'!«■.■' ."* • ' ' •S*’;^’' '), \jJ -*’j 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■ »- 
 
 .H . 'I' 
 
 A ..,- :V’ 
 
 
Alt 
 
 retaliation should consist of the repetition of the saiBe or similar 
 
 acts, and as far as possible it should be inflicted upon the actual 
 7 
 
 offender. Alexander told Darius that if the latter continued to 
 make war without quarter, he could not secure quarter. This, if 
 done would be a just reprisal. While, on the other hand the des- 
 truction of Corinth on account of injuries to the Roman Ambassa.dors 
 has been condemned as excessive retaliation. The burning of the 
 Emperor’s palace on 1660 in retaliation for Chinese cru.elty to 
 Europeans captured in ambush was also unjustifie.ble . Robert E. Lee, 
 the great Confederate general had been admired for his expressed 
 disapproval of Early’s burning of Chambersburg, in spite of the 
 fact that it was done by way of reprisals for Hunter’s destruction 
 of property in the Valley of Virginia. When, in the course of war, 
 the Union government set southern sla.ves free and put them in the 
 army, the Conf edera.tes , refusing to recognize them as enemy sol- 
 diers, threatened them as revolted slaves. No quarter was granted 
 to these poor victims. Whereupon President Lincoln threatened the ■ 
 execution of Confederate prisoners of war as retaliation in kind. 
 
 As slaves were not deserters in any proper sense, the Union govern- 
 ment after having enrolling them in the army, could not have done 
 less than protect them by retalia,tion. While reprisals on helpless 
 prisoners are the most cruel and object! oneJ. form of vengeance, 
 sometimes they will be the only available method for stopping a 
 repetition of the offence or for securing the punishment of the 
 guilty . 
 
 Thus it is evident that in exercising reprisals in time of 
 war only the same or simila.r acts, no equiva.lent acts, are permit- 
 
 Taylor, International Public Law. 468-489 
 

 
 3ftj i'. o<i?>* •» V • ;■ x>j4icif>?b^^ • 
 
 ^'<■ 4 * .’ . .... »‘*iv';.v ' ; 
 
 '’ - * '•■ •' ■- .*■'^24.' ■ :: 'm i l- to ’ 8f,'> xi® S't> i4vi3MpS.«^X®" 
 
4 ^ 
 
 ted. The reasons are that, in the first place, wrongs cannot he 
 
 balanced, and that the enemy, in failing to appreciate the justice 
 
 of the remedy adopted may find himself justified in still further 
 
 departing from the accepted usages and may so be inclined as to 
 
 6 
 
 neglect any established rules of civilized warfare. 
 
 "Wherea-S reprisals in time of peace” says Professor Oppen- 
 heim, "are admissible for international delinquencies only, repris- 
 als between belligerents are any act of illegitimate warfare, 
 whether the acts constitute an international delinquency or not." 
 When a belligerent is wronged, it is for him to consider whether 
 he will at once resort to reprisals or, before doing so, he will 
 lodge a pretest with the enemy or neutral states. Practically a 
 belligerent will not resort to reprisals at once unless the viola- 
 tion of rules of legitimate warfare is very grave and the safety 
 of his troops requires immediate drastic measures. In other words, 
 
 reprisals are justly regarded as only the last resort in cases of 
 
 9 
 
 absolute necessity. Thus the Germans during the Franco-German war 
 frequently bombarded, by way of reprisals, the undefended French 
 villages where their soldiers had been treacherously murdered by 
 enemy individuals in ambush who did not belong to the armed forces. 
 Lord Roberts, during the South African war ordered by way of repri- 
 sals, the destruction of houses and farms in places, where his line 
 of communication was damaged. 
 
 A belligerent possesses the. right of punishing persons who 
 violate the laws of war, if they fall into his hands and of punish- 
 
 8 
 
 George E. Davis, Elements of International Law, 326 
 9 
 
 Wylie, F.E., Smith International Law . 4th Edition, 162 
 
4 ^ 
 
 ing innocent persons by way of reprisals for violations of law 
 
 10 
 
 cor/!iiiitted by others, | 
 
 To the exercise of these rights there is no objection express-j 
 ed, so long as the belligerent confines to punishing breaches of | 
 universally recognized laws . It is justifiable to punish persons 
 who have been convicted of poisoning wells, of assassination, of | 
 marauding', of the use of a flag of truce to obtain information, or : 
 of employing prohibited wee-pons, etc. 
 
 The principle of humanity condemns all methods of warfare tha'i 
 make possible gratuitous cruelty, savagery, or treachery, the ill- 
 treatment of the helpless and the disarmed, including the wounded 
 and prisoners, the aged and feeble, women and children. ?iihere, 
 however, one of the belligerents persistently violates the princi- 
 ples of the laws and usages of war, the other is permitted to 
 adopt measures of reprisals, for compelling the law-bres-king- com- 
 batant to discontinue his conduct, and to exact reparation. But 
 such should be resorted to only on the authority of the government ■ 
 or the commander after the truth of the enemy's guilt has been 
 established, and after the enemy has failed to stop the misconduct. 
 They must not b e applied in a spirit of vindictiveness; for the 
 purpose is to obtain justice and to ensure complaince with estab- 
 lished rules. They should not be disproportional to the original 
 
 offence committed. The principle of justice and humanity should 
 11 
 
 be observed. Parthermore the true basis of the right of reprisals 
 in War is ”not the impairment of any obligation, but the redressing, 
 
 10 
 
 Hall, Int ernational Law , 7th Edition, 436 
 
 Coleman Phillipson, Wheaton 's International Law . 470 
 

 •re 
 
 
 
 
 « ■ .i-X- : ;. V- 
 
 ^ " oa \t V ' «,«.{js^,t^, . t/itr,; 'Ci;^j«Slw.ii’^ 
 
 
 K'- 1 t j-s' 4 *’si'', ■>•- >•' ..-• ^'.;-r 4 .'t.',fn»'l'(^; E. ./ 9 .i »/ .vntfX-'ijx'.'t,..' 
 
 ~ ’ i *'■ ' ^ 1 
 
 X 
 
 ,cy»:it»<Kf‘'jfc 
 
 
 
 .'* 'I 
 
 . X^ 4 = 
 
 
 •-■ tiu|f 4 c :^ 4 ^» 1,^*1 ,. i, 4 .j 4 ^r /j'r.n'M' V. a,^ w ;.„ ;! 
 
 . ^ iXi! 
 
 y,— *faS ^.T ,i|1 
 
 ' * 1 * • 
 
 » 4 » 
 
 .. V"^ "., *'** *“ '^' * ** * ® ^^'■^’AiilSil \i5wi '• 
 
 ri> 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ «. ^ > ■•’• 0 '4- ^.. J, -^., tfy . r. I! 
 
 St *•■ ?■: 
 
 V'. I, 
 
 ‘H' 
 
 
 . vJ = ES-r. ■'>’■«# ^ «*■ 
 
by puniohiTient or the exaction of damages, of a violated obligation.” 
 
 Arbitrariness in reprisals is very dangerous, for either the 
 alleged facts which call for the resort to reprisals are often not 
 sufficiently verified, or the rules of war which a belligerent con- 
 siders violated by his enemy are sometimes not universally recognia- 
 ed, or the act of reprisals performed is often excessive in cornpar- | 
 
 ison with the precedent act of illei?itimate warfare. 
 
 13 i 
 
 Three cases may illustrate this danger. 
 
 (a) In 1762, Joshua. Huddy, a captain in the army of the 
 American insurgents was taken prisoner by the loyalists and handed 
 over to a British captain, Lippencott, in the hope of being ex- 
 changed, but was arbitrarily put to death, Lippencott was arrested 
 by the commander of the British troops and ordered to be tried for 
 murder, Lippencott wa.s, however, acquitted by the court-ma.rtia,l as 
 evidence showed that he had done the brutal act under orders of a 
 Board which he was obliged to obey. Thereupon, some British offic-> 
 ers who were held prisoners in the hands of the Americans were 
 compelled to cast lots to determine who should be executed by way 
 of reprisals for the execution of Huddy. The lot fell on a young 
 captain by the name of Argill . He would have been executed if the 
 Queen of France had not mediated and saved him. 
 
 (b) The British government had captured twenty-three Irishmen 
 who had been naturalized in the United States and were serving as 
 seamen on American vessels. They were ordered to be tried for 
 trea,son. The Congress of the United States authorized the Presi- 
 
 12 
 
 Westla.ke, International Law . Part II, 114 
 13 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law . Volume II, 260-263 
 
]'- ' c , * ■ ;■ ' '''' ’ .' '-i, •' ^ ■' ’'V /4 '■* ** 
 
 H~ t-s * w.. t/.aT’ ii • h'&mii(ip7 T,i\Uf‘hi Wi Jfr’ ■ 
 
 ^ ■■ '•■ ■' ■ r '{ •‘■ISa' ‘ '•*■■■• ■ ' 
 
 ■ ••*sfl*ll <«y J ^-‘4 ’''I 
 
 .•*• "I 
 
 ■4. ^ • i • ’ 
 
 . - ' ‘ '- ■ , S :V “ ' ;.i«? 
 
 l.*A 
 
 ■*». 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ' '^r ■I-.'™" 
 
 ' iui ’ , •' . ; tkbK' V^H,ixv* j>. 
 
 
 . ^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ~ * ,'• l' ‘ fi. 1: >•' ' 
 
 
 
 ' • - A U ;"T ; ■. t .$ -L* J-iSf 
 
 • ►•- . V ■- 
 
 Tf ^ ; 1 - 
 
 >.'■ . ' 
 
 v,A 2 m 
 
 ' •■ ,JT»*? v;-. , ■'Vi^’^^.'i^.i; '* v;; ^ ' 4 '•-;^ & .'Silf if 
 
 t^t:; ,t:U^igf 
 
 :■« <5^4 ' '‘V-- ■■' ’ ' ■K.-i*;i : 
 
 f’ .' , 
 
 1^ ' :< ^ a-*.,? 
 
 siifeflKir^ ■•„>../ V' . 
 
 i' • 
 
48 
 
 dent to retaliate. Under this authorization. General Dearborn 
 placed in confinement twentj'"- three English prisoners taken at Fort 
 George. Lord Bathurst, directed General Prevast to order the close 
 imprisonment of double number of commissioned and non-com.missioned 
 American officers. A threat followed that if the measure of retal- 
 iation was pursued, unmitigated severity against American citizens 
 a.nd villages would be applied. 
 
 When Mr. Madison retorted by putting into prison a similar 
 number of British officers taken by the United States, General 
 Prevast inmiediately retaliated by subjecting all his prisoners to 
 the same discipline. The hot temper, however, was subdued on the 
 part of England. 
 
 "A party of American officers who were prisoners in England 
 were released on parole, with instruction to state to the President 
 that the twenty-three prisoners who had been cha.rged with treason 
 in England had not been tried, but remained on the usual basis of 
 prisoners of war. This led to the dismissal on pa,role of all of- 
 ficers of both sides.” 
 
 (c) During the Franco- German war, the French had captured 
 forty German merchant vessels and made their ca.pt ains and crews 
 prisoners of war. Count Bismarck who considered this to be against 
 international law, demanded their release and after it had been 
 refused by France, ordered by way of reprisals the arrestment of 
 forty French private individuals of local importance. The3r were 
 sent as prisoners to Bremen where they were kept until the end of 
 the War. ’’Count Bismarck was decidedly wrong, since France had in 
 no way committed an illegal act by retaining the German crews as 
 prisoners of war." 
 

 
 uh f . ' - 4 ‘ *.^r‘,<f ¥i ««'’.Ef^ •* ^ ^.i ' 
 
 BC\jf’ ■.. iJ'*' ‘ • ■' ' ,- V ,.^*'- i*. >. 'ii 
 
 
 »V < 
 
 < ir ., ^ .1;'"%; ■' 
 
 
 '■^ 'X:,l ■ ■ ? 
 
 r“i'^:A»*«ft&'I/« . 
 
 . : ivWd'i-D ••i>.r‘J.-#ffe.'>-:" U.1* ;-r 
 
 ^■! .- ■ ■ 'ff 'AJ .*•+:( . •’v'* ■ 4 , .*. 
 
 ' '' ' ■ ‘/"‘■-;V^I<r-:-. i 
 
 b,...- 
 
 '• /iSa* iVi*’}' Sf .S« 
 
 
— 
 
 The danger of arbitrariness in reprisals in time of war may 
 
 be avoided if the following' restrictions can be strictly observed. 
 
 14 
 
 (1) "For violation of laws and usages of war.” 
 
 ( 2 ) "By an ’offender beyond reach'.” 
 
 ( 3 ) "In case of ’necessity’ only." 
 
 ( 4 ) "Within duties of ’humanity'." 
 
 ( 5 ) "Proportioned to offence." 
 
 (0) "Only in case of ’injury not repaired’." 
 
 15 
 
 ( 7 ) "The offence in ouestion must have been inquired into." 
 (b) "Redress for the wrong,. or punishment of the real offende 
 must be unattainable." 
 
 ( 9 ) "The reprisals must be authorized, unless under very 
 special circumstances, by the commander-in-chief." 
 
 Having studied the justification, danger and restrictions of 
 reprisals in time of war, we can now proceed to discuss reprisals 
 in war upon prisoners, resident enemies, and non-combatants, and 
 reprisals in war consisting in the bombardment of towns, confisca- 
 tion of private property, aerial attacks, the use of mine, contra- 
 band on food-stuffs, the distruction of hospital ships, the use of 
 gas and the refusal of quarter. 
 
 ( 1 ) Reprisals Upon Prisoners of War. - 34r. Paul Carpentier is 
 of the opinion that to execute prisoners is to break the quaai- 
 contrext made with them when they agree to surrender; but most 
 jurists, like Professor Fillet, would maintain that the captor has 
 the power to adopt such measures in very extreme cases. The German 
 
 14 
 
 (l)-(6) Naval War College . Int e rnational Law Discussio n. 1903, 43 
 
 15 
 
 (?)-(9) Holland, The Law of War on Land, 61 
 

 t . 1 *^, , 'TYPW.-IT 
 
 
 ■ io s ; |»i*i€ ‘ df di 'vjS 
 
 ^ ' ■ . ’>U* 
 
 
 -vn-v'v,r..- 
 
 i;^'tixtiij liiilpi, oifT^SS®' ■> 
 
 ..w 4 R*I w , 1 
 
 • a. ^ r Mr ,1.9 il !jOf\ .irrr4.g^';v,i«Sio.v4?W-; 
 
 *<i ,U|^ fr-v,|W 5 ?| 
 
 I * V *' ICi- ae4jj^ »V^VjtV’ '('^r V 
 
 *..■ t-i 
 
 
 ki 
 
 '1^'^? . •i.a.ia-ierl^i.u/ . ?•? .(yj :,<«* 
 
 , i^: n$s ". Jjf) .'« ' V 
 
 • 7 1 S 
 » *«. - ■ 
 
 ^ ^ .* . .'/‘I" '. - 4 ' ^ 
 
 
 I ■! 
 
 
 M 7 vrfj;, U’ ' 
 
 ;'T' 1 
 
 ^ v;-.,^^ 9f#x^. roft 4 ^^ •!#., ;J1- j 
 
 H . fM:K**€fiCo 7 < fl,.f ‘1^ 
 
 ■• *■ " ■■■"■“' •? .. i'^ 5 ^ 
 
 'r-^ 7‘7 i.:. xrw • 
 
 ’*■ "^ . ^ ''T' *" * ■ ‘/-.ji f ' * ■^ '■- «-■' •• ' ’• 'y ^ %' *‘'^^Jl'\‘ j ' 
 
 ,. 4 -- .5, ,,, ?', i ..'n«k '.V l^v^o.k,v^^jsitsT.^.‘-W^.4W^l-^^ 
 
 ’ ■ ^ ' 'WL, <?<■.:. .Vn>^ 
 
 If ' . ‘ ..1 ’.f..,f:: ■ >iiVir •. < 
 
 
 .i.©r. 
 
 ' 7 . ■ ''^''>7. “ 4 :,^ 7 *’ '^7 
 
 • .■"*. '■ ill -;,,,,. i 
 
 .-' ' ■ vv.r ,■/ :., -j-: 4 (fa i- -r - 
 
 ^ ‘ ^ ,.,‘vr- ff .' . .4!.' . k-. I 
 
 'V. 
 
50 
 
 Manual gives sanction to kill prisoners of war in unavoidaTole cases 
 
 of urgent necessity. '‘Every prisoner of war," says article 59 of 
 
 The American Instructions, "is liable to punishment by way of repri 
 
 sals," "When the infraction complained of," says Mr. Bonfils, 
 
 "emanates from soldiers, it is on soldiers especially that reprisal 
 
 15 
 
 must be inflicted." 
 
 During the American Civil war, when the Confederates refused 
 to recognize the negroes who had been enrolled in the Union Army 
 as soldiers and to grant them quarter when they v?ere captured, the 
 Union government, threatened to retaliate by refusing quarter to 
 the southern soldiers. 
 
 There were many cases in relation to the treatment of prison- 
 
 16 
 
 ers during the World War. According to the German regulations, the 
 prinsoners were only permitted to write two letters each month and 
 one postal card per week. Books and periodica.ls were put under 
 investigation before they were sent to the prisoners. No ne?/spaper 
 was admitted to the German prison camps, not even German papers, 
 until the end of March 1915. 
 
 The Prussian Minister of War issued an ordinance on February 
 3, 1915 by which the prisoners were prohibited from writing their 
 letters with ink. Exchange of correspondence betwreen prisoners of 
 different camps was not allowed, unless the letters were relating 
 to family affairs. Many complaints were made that in some camps 
 the prisoners were not allowed to write at all. They might be 
 required to write in German, Prior to September 1915, communica- 
 
 15 
 
 Spaight, War Rip-ht on Land . 465 
 
 Garner, International Law and the World War , Volume II, 37-53 
 
■ ^ ^ n ' ‘ 
 
 ■^TT 
 
 -■ Piib’ V i,<3 * ^'1. 
 
 
 . , ' If. 
 
 ■ *' 0 
 
 Cl Iv > r.P.'v 
 
 -Ifc’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v.% 
 
 . **• 
 
 ';c^^ 
 
 \ ■ 
 
 ■ , ^ » *• ,T‘ J * *4)!i;'jy» . " t 
 
 ,tK- . .1 . /A ’.. 
 
 '.N^r;.-' .ttn ■ ^j'ail ^-t'^ll^. ]^'i^ ' 
 
 ,^' ”i>jvr7 .M-i 'f* 
 
 ' --^ * ’ utqfi «Jr« I ;a :‘ » >4. <f : «?A^. plj 
 
 ^i-u M .it w?. It 
 
 . ‘ * . --t ‘ ‘ • ‘ ^ ‘ . '■ ^ * 'll 
 
 .' o . « 9,v,^,t ... . J V •, ; ' m i,. ,« it. . iS^ 
 
 ►f '7 ' fl 
 
 i, ld.-t< It, stcjf >I!n£ Sy.^l4SS&*Sfe.^J^ 
 
 L_t- ■: . ' '' ‘ ■" ■' ' ' ^ i 
 
 
 2L A-^ • fL 
 
5/ 
 
 tion with prisoners in the occupied territories of Belgium and 
 France was not allowed, nor could parcels containing food be sent 
 to the French prisoners in those places. Letters addressed to the 
 prisoners were not delivered but sent back to the senders. 
 
 Against this harsh restriction, the French government protest- 
 ed and abandoned its early liberal policy. France also protested 
 against the long and unreasonable delays in the delivery of letters 
 and parcels sent to the prisoners in Germany. The letters were de~ 
 layed for a period of ten days before sending them to the addressee. 
 It has also been alleged that the letters were sometimes held in 
 the hands of the German authority of more than a month. On July 4, 
 1915, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs told the German 
 authorities that unless measures were ma.de to remedy the abuse, the 
 French government would impose by way of reprisals, a systematic 
 delay in the delivery of letters to German prisoners in some camps. 
 The protest and the threat produced no effect and the measure of 
 reprisals was carried out. 
 
 With regard to employment of prisoners, articles 6 of the 
 Hague regulations provides: ”The state may employ the labour of 
 
 prisoners of war, other than officers, according to their rank and 
 capacity. The work shall not be excessive, and shall have no con- 
 nection with the operations of war. Prisoners may be authorized to 
 work for the public service, for private persons, or on their own 
 account. Work done for the state is paid for at rates proportional 
 to the work of a similar kind executed by soldiers of the national 
 army, or, if there are no such rates in force, at rates proportion- 
 al to the work executed. When the work is for other branches of 
 the public service, or for private persons, the conditions are 
 

 
 r if ;^F* : : ■ ', ■ 
 
 h ft '■ ‘ '-r- «1 ^ll^Aoi.^ 
 
 f 5 i- -ivCl ; ^r;ifl.j:tf/»<v> « -I < \-a« '« 
 
 I = ', ■ :« - iQ , • ••'■'" ' 0, *» ■ 
 
 t [t -V! 
 
 •'ll.' .«.! '/t-nii-^idsi, ■ jf'.-j'- ■,i:^''''i%^-^<^&} 
 
 ' • '■ ' ■ \^4r.V t^n..' iOi. Ix - ^^>*^'1-4 
 
 ,< 
 
 , '. '•• A 
 
 ;."'tr ■^i ■ '.'*' ;Si^j 
 
 4.,. ^<’v; 
 
 ♦i» Mb . " • ’ XJ '^ > T ’ % . V ' ' " T"* ^ 
 
 •-v . . ■ v*._ ,'*^,:^^-j^' |: • ’■ ’ •.. i.} ». 
 
 I- ■'Cil: r; 
 
 — vp--i«u*4.'4 <r^.j ‘ i •' 
 
 .-)■ tf ‘ 
 
 
 * • ^•^rr?' \ ' •; • ■ .-4 '.,- v^- ■ -«^^-*w'',,-; w/ 
 
 7^’ '■' •* >-«AS*Xft -'a •Sf»:-VK ■ • It »-• »4 Jfit--«W-<8ra{W 
 
 ‘> . \- ■“ [,/ ' ' ■ 
 
 i’j.i »,- A 
 
settled in agreement with the military authorities. The wages of 
 the prisoners shall go towards inproving their position, and the 
 balance shall be paid them on their release, deductions on account : 
 of the cost of maintenance excepted.” ! 
 
 The German practice of the employment of prisoners during the 
 World War was alleged to be inconsistent with the rules of the 
 Hague Convention. It had been estimated that at least eighty per ^ 
 cent of all the prisoners of war held by Germany were employed 
 in nearly all agricultural, manufactural , mining and other indust- 
 ries of Germany, The prisoners worked on so extensive a scale that 
 it is not an exaggeration to say that German industry during the 
 war was run mainly by the prison labor. Compulsory labor was en- 
 forced and those who refused to work were punished by isolation 
 and deprivation of privileges. The prisoners complained that they 
 were compelled to rise in early hours and travel a long distance to 
 the working camps. ”There were also many complaints that the hours 
 of labor were long, sometimes as many as twelve and even fifteen 
 hours; that prisoners were required to work on Sundays and holiday^; 
 that the tasks were unsuited to many of them; that large numbers 
 were set to draining swamps in llorthern Germany, where they were 
 exposed to the rigors of winter weather, and where they were com- 
 pelled to work in the water up to their knees, that they were some- 
 times required to work in cement factories, nitrate plants, and 
 
 17 
 
 even amunition plants, and the like.” 
 
 The forcing of some one thousand five hundred French prison- 
 ers to work in the Krupp Cannon factory was one among the more 
 
 17 
 
 Garner, Internation al Law and the World War , Volume II, 43 
 
r 
 
5 $ 
 
 serious charges. The request to send a representative of the Red 
 Cross society to make an investigation of the charges was refused 
 ’oy the German authorities under the reason that plants of a milit- 
 ary character were closed to visitors. 
 
 As early as- August 1916, the charge was made hy the British 
 and French governments that Germany was employing its prisoners at | 
 forced labor close behind the firing line intending to expose them , 
 to the fire of the guns of their own soldiers and allies. Germany ■ 
 did not deny such conduct but she pleaded the excuse of retaliation 
 for similar conduct pursued by the British and French authorities. 
 The latter emphatically denied the German charge regarding the em- 
 ployment of German prisoners behind the firing line. In April 1917 
 the German and the British governments C3,tne to an agreement under 
 Which each promised not to employ respective prisoners within 
 thirty kilometers of the firing line. This agreement was not ob- 
 served by Germany. A British government committee under the cha,ir- 
 manship of Mr. Justice Younger in March 1918, reported that the 
 Germans had continued to employ British prisoners within the range 
 of the artillery dispite of the agreement; that the work assigned 
 to the prisoners were forbidden by the laws of war; that the hours 
 were too long and tasks too excessive; that prisoners were mal- 
 treated and half-starved; and that the refusal of the Germans to 
 permit neutral inspections of prisoners in occupied territory made 
 it difficult to obtain information concerning these matters. 
 
 The Germans also under-paid for the prison labor. The com- 
 pensation for farming was from sixteen to thirty pfennigs (3 to 5 
 cents) per day, in techenical industries 75 to 100 pfennigs. Skill- 
 ed labor seldon received as much as 3 or 3 marks per day, French 
 
■ • V p-'r7 . ■' ... « ■ ’1 
 
 ■ ■ 'fr 
 
 
 
 > 't- 
 
 ‘.-' • . .. "-'r. : ■''.<■ J"’ “ '■ j 
 
 ^4*". \ ' ■ “I!' *■■♦«'■ 
 
 k' ’ '■ '3 ■ ■ ^ ■ ■ 1' ' 
 
 U' ^ ‘i'twy t- i;.' ^' ' 4.,iU ill 
 
 • li'' •- -■■,e-^ '••>■,- :> - v.^:^ ^.,. 
 
 
5 ^ 
 
 prisoners received only 30 pfennigs per day for draining marshes, 
 
 90 pfennigs for work in mines, and as much as 2 marks for labor in 
 munition establishments. 
 
 The punishment and discipline of prisoners in Germany were 
 severe. The offender, after being caught was put in solitary con- 
 finement for a certain period. Sometimes a prisoner might be tied 
 to a post with his hands behind him, where he was forced to stand 
 for some period in the heat of the sun or in cold. ”Sometime8 he 
 Was suspended with his feet dangling above the ground; sometimes 
 he Was compelled to stand for hours bearing a heavy load or walk 
 to and fro with a heavy sack of bricks on his back. At Ruheleben 
 offenders against the regulations were confined in small, ill- 
 lighted cells for periods ranging from twenty-four to seventy-two 
 hours. Their ration was war bread and cold water. Prisoners who 
 suceeded in escaping, but who were subsequently retaken before 
 reaching the frontier, were placed in solitary confinement until 
 the end of the war.” 
 
 Besides, there were charges of brutality and cruelty in some 
 of the German camps. The striking, beating and rough handling of 
 prisoners by the German officers in some cases were complained by 
 the Allies, The American Embassy had also protested against the 
 employment of vicious dogs in Wittenberg and other camps. The 
 British and French made a number of charges that an Irish prisoner 
 Was shot by the guard at Limburg, that eight prisoners were burned 
 to death, that some prisoners were thrusted with bayonets and some- 
 timed seriously injured for trival offences and that punishments | 
 were generally inflicted without a just trial. 
 
 These would justify the English in the making of reprisals 
 
i^iL -'b’S *. i '••v'^T"' '•aIiC74£ 
 
 , '*' ''^ ‘ * ' '■■• •'»<!/!* >,'(!'.^ .1..C * .:.^u-,al/ riJi4'**<iKus. iil* 
 
 ¥l 
 
 '' ' ■' ' ‘•7 .'-i ‘'■■'/■■I 
 
 I'..-'* “•• ..!^a.^ jstj 'Vl? A 
 
 • X ,,, .0-t ■s.'- ^,Vf.t_^.s s,r* •■is-;^ v^;: 
 
 ?■• * 1 '» • • V . ’.. ; jR| * V %'• V *?' ‘ 
 
 ^'l.i .• ‘ . C^-.:-r4- Cl r? t •;, v /. : 11 ' *’ ^Ud(f£^, \^< ^ tU Jt>- l»»i 
 
 «T 'in; rryi* , r .' ixji*. 
 
 * ‘ • '' I* A* ^ 
 
 . ' . - /i • ''■ /i, '■ ' ; 
 
 i • « fi' %‘ *'ki f kli..lMB£n 'i « 
 
 ■■ . 'J ' ' ' .- *‘v' '^ .^' \:>'' ■ ;*’"' ■ i « 
 
sg- 
 
 if the English Parliament had so demanded. Lord Newton said that 
 ”in a competition of brutality, we should be outdistanced immediate-l 
 ly." But in spite of the decision of the Parliament there was f rom j 
 time to time a wide spread popular demand in England for the adopt- 
 ion of measures of reprisals. 
 
 In the summer of 1915 the German government threatened to 
 maJs.e a reprisal against Canadian prisoners because of the bad treat-j 
 ment of German civilian prisoners in the internment camps at Amhers-^ 
 Nova Scotia. This charge, however, was groundless. The transfer 
 of a large number of French prisoners to North Germany to work in 
 draining marshes and swamps was held as measure of reprisals for th ; 
 alleged brutal treatment of German Military and civilian prisioners 
 in Africa. 
 
 In May and June 1916, some thirty thousand French upper class 
 prisoners were transferred to the Baltic and Polish provinces of 
 Russia where they were set to hard work in the building of rail- 
 roads. Rations were greatly reduced, and they were deprived of 
 many privileges. The pretext taken by Germany for the measure was 
 the internment and mal-treatment of German civilians in Morocco.. 
 Some British prisoners also were transferred to the German occupied 
 regions- of Russia where thej? were required to undertake hard work. 
 This was done in consequence of the action of the British govern- 
 ment in sending an equal number of German prisoners from the intern- 
 ment camps in England to work at unloading ships at French ports. 
 
 In the autumn of 1916 Germany, by way of reprisals, seized 
 some two hundred Frenchmen and women in the occupied region of 
 France and transferred them to Germany in consequence of the alleg- 
 ed failure of French government to fulfil the terms of an agreement 
 
II " ■ f 7 : ;. 
 
 
 ._ . ' -;^;T!n 
 
 isayi.t 
 
 
 V- 'V’,*-,»‘- : 
 
 "■•'*■ j.*'' J if^.^' 
 
 •'*- . (i-. la .?*o ’'Bio. 
 
 «; .»*c» , 
 
 X‘7r 
 
 *' io> ^i<4. 
 
 -/ -yJ 
 
 ' i*' ’*A' 
 
 vaiX<^ 
 
 ' ' :;. • >1 
 
 < w M »#*• ^ 
 
 
 
 /^r. ■',5 -::■ ' ‘i?| j| 
 
 ■ -, 1 *'< aV 2k;'* <*t»'' 
 
 
 1^,1 
 
 ^%W‘ - ■* ^ >c »;f- V -fri*' « _ V _ Xv 
 
 •• jg{‘'-.'x- *•■»■.'•' *- *»* ' iv«- * V-aV'V 
 
 1 . » . <€r' •' *' r - "'‘^1 'V •■•.•♦»? A -.'" •••. * 
 
 X- <»- 
 
 j *•' r^’ J-lv*'. „ ’ ?* 
 
 ■ V>»s' » t 
 
 1 ■•■ £'■ 
 
 ; C' 
 
 . ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 f flfjc .VT..' * 
 
 ^i^ -* i^*..*)f* 
 
 V ■'7''- " ■' ■’ '■ ■' *"‘-'‘^7 ; 7 M>'' #' ■ * - ' '7' 
 
 ■ ■ • 1, > T ■ ■ j' - ,? . , ?'fi ■ ■' 
 
 ' Vrtv l.:v; \0 <^ii’‘<'<^, 3^.* ,<>lt:^*(#- 
 
 '^'' ". ■+■ V «S- ‘V,,. • ,„ j :ji' t;^:; 
 
 . 
 
b6 
 
 concerning the release of civilian prisoners. 
 
 Neither the British nor the French government resorted to the 
 practice of reprisals although threats were occasionally made and 
 in some cases regulations concerning the privileges of prisoners 
 were so readjusted as to bring them into conformity with those of 
 Germany . 
 
 (2) Reprisals Against Non-Combatants. - When the delinquent, 
 state refused reparation for the wrong committed, the injured state 
 can exercise such means as are necessary to obtain redress. In 
 case of international delinquencies committed in time of peace such 
 means are reprisals which include embargo, pacific blockade, and 
 War When it is inevitable. On the other hand, in case of interna- 
 tional delinquencies committed in time of war through the violation 
 
 of laws of Warfare on the part of a belligerent, such means are 
 
 !8 
 
 reprisals and the taking of hostages. 
 
 A person seized by way of reprisals has the right to be treat- 
 ed as a hostage whose life is sacred. He is not imprisoned for 
 
 crime and his civil rights are unaffected. His will is valid al- 
 
 19 
 
 though the testator might be a prisoner of war. ”Host.ages,” says 
 W.E. Hall, “are often seized in order to ensure prompt payment of 
 contributions and compliance with requisitions, or as a collateral 
 security when a vessel is released on a ransom bill; more rarely 
 they are used to guard against molestration in a retreat and for 
 other like purposes.” It is forbidden by an established usage to 
 take their lives unless they are attempting to escape. They must 
 
 18 
 
 Oppenheim, International Law. Volume I. 250 
 13 ~ 
 
 Taylor, International Publi c Law, 530 
 
^ W v^; ii 7 » ^ ^ rr^ 
 
 0 
 
 ayi i^^e kca a; 
 
 wpv. ■,.,,*. 
 
 ' K '. > 
 
 ; *U M*>C ti Z': ‘t‘Arill^l'4i'#x€<? 
 
 Q / 'mu ' i' 'vi 
 
 ^1 
 
 fc % I 
 
 ► :fj»Pj^1S’4' Q>j iTci/. AAit't Ul)I j i,lB-i t ’.if 3 
 
 ] i.' -’/ ^‘* ' V. '■' ‘ ’^>‘ „ 
 
 V ^ : '., ' ® .'. ■ <M i 
 
 ||V ‘?-i' . cicZ' »JiOfM .tcuxzT o.r 
 
 ^ - ... ■ 41 ^'^ .. •'■■... ^ "v 
 
 K 
 
 Ml . xi 
 
 f*k , 
 
 :'xr.r 
 
 1 . ^ 
 
 Jit ', u* 3 iv- >^ - tl 1 . ! no/ilf-.'*, 
 
 » iiu #|| '. ^./df 1-iTuy^--'-. ;.? ‘xiilt t c 6*wi:reiVj9^'J^ 
 
 - - - - * - ^ .y, , j w*. ••»■,«. w I- 4 >« V 15 : 3 HJt,-’t 5 f, t 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 *- SOI ^ iJ _9», V ■'4’“^'*' te r tx« V(3 aiW'.’fii, ^Ad|^R 0^ 
 
 -.-. - ’• '- -■' v-d 
 
 rfn* A * 5 - r . >■ I ,-• I •% !V,. * (k-. .r. k.Ui 4 k. . _ 7 _ . . , .« . , . -• * . ” 
 
 * -‘ ■■ ■ , _ ■ •• *'’ '■'''* • /‘j . '- ■ ’ ' ■ ■ ^#'I£Jf/■ 4 ’-./i^ 
 
 ^.<■,' 0 .5 • CZi ivSft* 't^‘*-J..^^*^ 
 
 ” >rw'> 4 . . ‘ ^* (£ 
 
 i* U‘ 4ifv p 4ii ,t'^i^/', iJS^'V^v* tfr 
 
 vl J i J - / ' / V“ ;>( 
 
 
 f 
 
 .« 1 ' 
 
 tt 
 
 .'M ' ' . ’•'“ ■''''^' ^/': 
 
 fci. or.. ?** - Aj'U.'^fo' .! 
 
 ? * ' k ‘ b*'' . ■ I 'u 
 
 
 
 'i*rc .'« 
 
 ft. . ' . ' ;'. % i" 
 
 t ’iVri:i.:> 0 *' ,£' (k HO fiji*^,ZZW 0 >Ldd». 
 
 ■ ‘t-elJA-i t^viju ;Xi:i-J .e- ifci % iffjwiw? 
 
 ‘ V . '*■ ‘ ;; iv.. 
 
 ' \ 0 -. :.fU JtO'XJC-T^ .:tz 
 
 ^ * . ^.» .*J 'T^ . * > ^ . '*,--* -' ■ . . 
 
 SW-*''*- f*, 
 
 vse^\ 
 
 . i>.i , 
 
 r* . 
 
 r » *’• . 
 
 .'v f 
 
 *.’:r'T' 
 
 
57 
 
 be treated as prisoners of war except that escape may be prevented 
 
 20 
 
 by closer confinement. 
 
 During the American Civil War, the Confederates seized a num- 
 ber of unoffending citizens of Maryland and Pennsylvania and kept 
 them in the South until the end of the war; their intention being 
 to hold them as security against the arrestment or ill-treatment by 
 the Union government of the "Copperheads” who were resident in the 
 North and were said to be in sympathy with the South. Again during 
 Franc o-Crerman War, the Germa.n authority ordered the seizure of 
 forty notable inhabitants of Di;jou, Cray and Vesoul, in retaliation 
 for the decision of the French government to treat the crews of i 
 German merchant vessels as prisoners of war. During the Boers War, 
 this practice was revived by Great Britain. When the Boers appro- 
 ached Aliwal North in November 1699, before crossing the Orange 
 River, they seized the British magistrate Mr. Hugo and ordered him 
 to stand on the middle of the bridge with his assistants and chief 
 
 constable while the army crossed. This is a "prophylactic repriseil' 
 
 21 
 
 against the British .measure of mining the bridge. 
 
 As to the usage of exposing civilian hostages to danger by 
 way of preventive retaliation, opinions of writers are divided. 
 "Their proceedings" says Professor Pil'Jet referring to the German 
 practice in the Franco- Prussian War, "resemble that of the mutineers 
 who place women and children in the first rank, hoping that the 
 troops will not dare to fire upon them. Fighting ought to be con- 
 fined to soldiers, and there is little military virtue in making 
 
 20 
 
 Hall, Interna tional Law . 7th Edition, 439 
 21 
 
 Spaight, War Right on Land . 465-466 
 

 ;f^ f: IP 
 
 '. "- ' ^ ‘•V’^ '■ WlifcM^^'vii^' . V-r‘ ''f.i^'-’^' ■ 
 
 ffi\^(X t\ *uts 1 X 4 i*(/r yif^* * 
 
 p. / .. " '.. i' • ^ iv’^f 
 
 I ' ' , ■ ' '^ 5 *'• '* ■ ■■' 
 
 , ' ■•'■ ■> '■ ^■' ,1 . ’ .^ _' •■ f^fflj v:',j'»|'.S ^3 
 
 i-:-*:i^U.>y: »4 . ' -<i; JV, ’na,;^j«j ,v,vvi .« ^f U^iOii il^^”«t•il* 
 
 • -^ •*?% ■*** •■-‘^’ I'-rf.* 4 fcii j».,.r . |l I,-. (i^$# J* 
 
 ■.■•••' ■• - ■: /r.-y.i. /'• •.•« ’ ‘^.1 ■•■•'>•>; , 
 
 ■' •• • ’W ' ■■* \»'-VV&^.''^' 
 
 ..• ■♦ f .^..." _:.-tj'' ■ 'il v 5 li' I 
 
 ' 'I 
 
 f ■' ' .• 'V/ '■r v: .V ■«;! ^,f,r•|t 
 
 , “r4H& .tin? ciri_^(S;iiV. . r .j,.t; ,. 
 
 1 ' • ■ i ' ^* ** r j V ^ ’ 'i ' 
 
 *-^H ' *VP*“*^ ^ 
 
 ' r<'.W aaltVlaS|P^.;(<iv^tv^5^,s^ 
 
 ^ -Ai^f. 3 ^Vi ,fW„ 
 
 ■ . y" H* L “ • ■- ■'^ ■ ‘ - •' ■ '^*r; 
 
 >• -.^ '^f •■■•iriia^ifsa, o» ^ tfa&iiM 
 
 ■ ' / » V.'’ •■ iv^ ' -•'>^ 
 
 ^ /* ^ ^-_‘e»l li .’ • M.' M. P ». ■ ^ .. . -. Ji ^ ». u. -1. - ,?.i* f .irtr^.r^ 
 
 rf 
 
 
 ., :>»-. . ’> . - L*!,. 1,; .-•^^ 
 
 m«k'i.' V 1 .; 
 
 
 '^- .1 
 
 if'! 
 
 
 ■ 'I*#*: 
 
 
 .T •■'V!v>. '''*^(Mll 
 
 :;.i; 
 
5S 
 
 use of non-coBi'batants as a shield against the enterprise of the 
 enemy.” ”It would not he more unjust,” says Professor Westlake, 
 
 ”if civilians of the enemy state were placed in the front of battle ■ 
 in order to induce the enemy's troops to withhold their fire." On 
 the other hand, the German Official Manual admits that the method 
 used to prevent train-wrecking in 18?0-7i was a cruel one, but 
 justifies it on the ground that the plan was completely successful, 
 no accident occuring to trains while e.ll previous measures adopted 
 to stop the irregular conduct of a fanatical population appeared to 
 be a total failure. Both the views of Professors Westlake and 
 Fillet’s on the one side and that of the German Official jurists' 
 on the other are too absolute, genereJ, and dogmatic; both ignore 
 the varying circumstances in which the practice in question may be 
 resorted to. Mr, Spaight remarks that the circumstances of the 
 case must be carefully studied before such preventive reprisals can 
 be condemned. "If reprisals," he maintains, "are legitimate at all 
 and if they may be inflicted upon a civil population, then to retal- 
 iate as far as possible in kind is proper and equitable. But repri- 
 sals can only be inflicted for a violation of the laws of war. 
 
 They must not be inflicted to prevent the enemy from carrying out 
 
 23 
 
 a proper act of hostilities." 
 
 "The principle of humanity condemns all instruments and 
 methods of warfare that involve gratuitous cruelty, sava.gery or 
 treachery; it reprobates, therefore, the ill-treatment of the help- 
 less and the disarmed including the wounded and prisoners , the aged 
 
 23 
 
 and feeble, women and children. But w^e are sorrj^ to say that with 
 22 
 
 ^Spaight, War Ri ght on Land . 468-469 
 <b3 
 
 Colman Phillipson, Wheat on ' s International Law . 470 
 
respect to the treatment of n on- combat ant s , the practice of nations 
 
 always overrides the principle of humanity. Every war has seen 
 
 reprisals e.gainst citizens, either consisting in the destruction of 
 
 their property, the exaction of fines, or the seizure of their 
 24 
 
 persons . 
 
 During the World War, the Germans adopted extremely rigorous 
 
 and barbarous measures against the non-comba.tants in the occupied 
 
 regions of Belgium and France, When they were charged, they allege: 
 
 25 
 
 that the civilians of the region participated in fighting, A Germ- 
 an army doctor wrote an article in Colcgue Gazette which said, 
 "Belgium civilians shoot out of every house, from behind every 
 thick bush, with blind hatred, upon everything that is German. In 
 the very first days of the campaign, we lost a number of dead and 
 wounded throuph the civilians." 
 
 In reply to such allegations, the Belgium government had re- 
 peatedly denied that its civilians had te.ken part in the hostility ’ 
 ies. From the beginning of war between Germany and Belgium, the 
 latter had issued instructions every day in each town warning the 
 civilians not to resist the invaders. No doubt there were here and 
 there some individuals who did take up arms and participate in 
 fighting. But illicit hostilities by non-combatants could be reme- 
 died according to the provisions in the law of war. It was illegal 
 to inflict collective penalties for the acts of individuals. 
 
 In spite of Belgian protest the Germans did not stop their 
 measures of savage and unrestrained reprisals. 
 
 August 10, 11, 12: An old man of Neerhespen had his arms 
 
 24 
 
 Spaight, War Ri p.ht on Land. 465 
 
 25 
 
 Colman Phillipson, International Law and the Gre s.t War . 181-192 
 
60 
 
 sliced in three longitudinal cuts, being hanged head downward and 
 burned alive. In Orsmael, young girls were violated, children out- 
 ranged and inhabitants killed. 
 
 August 10, Linsmeau: “German cavalry occupying the village 
 
 of Linsmeau were attacked by some Belgium infantry and two gen- 
 armes. A German officer was killed by our troops during the fight, 
 and subsequently buried at the request of the Belgium officer in 
 conjmand. None of the civilian population took part in the fighting 
 at Linsmeau. Nevertheless, the village W8.3 invaded at dusk, August 
 10, by a strong force of German cavalry, artillery and machine guns. 
 In spite of formal assurance given by the Burgo-master that none of 
 the peass.nts had taken part in the previous fighting, two farms and 
 six outlying houses were destroyed by gun-fire. All the male popu- 
 lation were then compelled to come forward and hand over whatever 
 arms they possessed. No recently discharged firearms were found. 
 Nevertheless, the invaders divided these peasants in three groups. 
 Those in one group were bound and eleven of them placed in a ditch, 
 where they were afterwards found dead, their skulls fractured by 
 the butts of German rifles." 
 
 August 18, Schaffen: Many villagers were massacred. A woman 
 
 and a daughter were shot and thrown into a sewer. Some were hanged 
 on a tree and burned alive; some were buried alive. 
 
 August 19, Corbeck-Loo: A woman, S3 years old, whose husband 
 
 was in the army was surprised by the sudden appee.rance of a band 
 of German soldiers. Several of her relatives were locked in an 
 abandoned house, while she was brought to another house where she 
 was violated successively by five soldiers. In the same village, 
 August SO, German soldiers searched a house where they found a 
 

 
 
 fwp 
 
 i ^ ■<' ’ '■"i'- 
 
 ll' * \ i- 
 
 ‘ , fiZ'^ 
 
 
 hjit 
 
 r-; 
 
 ^'’' •‘•■''oi' ■ ’ ’ ;^.d Apr^f 
 
 * .,. ; ' ■ a-'-a • ". ^ ■ , . / ■ ■ ' ^ • ^’- ' 4w-.iBi ''*‘^^/"Wif' 
 
 '^’ •’ .1''. ' tJ , ' '. ' , '\v: '*’'-Mj&.' ^ ■■ . 4hJP\» J 
 
 :, ■ |. ;i»# ,i*»» 
 
 If- ii-.t^i, r*-f , 
 
 
 '-. «".r *#:'?.. 
 
 - .' ’ ■ .i-?‘ ; ^’ •^ V- ■ -'''^5 •■ 1 Jv^r.>J '' ■'''r-j!i*^>^*' ' 
 
 fr’’''t 
 
 %'i 
 
 -^, yj,,o« . aa 1 1' ■'T?i,'* u*v':, -5',* ■ Wf'»)j -ffi* 
 
 *- 
 
 h 
 
 $AU 
 
 *'■ ,■ '. , •* * f ^ ^ 
 
6 / 
 
 young girl of 16 living with her parents. Some kept her parents 
 off; others took the girl to an abandoned house where she was 
 compelled to drink. Afterwaxds they carried her out on the lawn 
 and violated her successively. When she continued to resist, they 
 pierced her breasts with their bayonets. 
 
 August 19-36, Louvain: A fugitive treasurer of the city gave 
 
 the following account, "The cavalry charged through the streets 
 sabring fugitives, while the infantry posted on the footpaths, had 
 their fingers on the triggers of their guns waiting for the unfor- 
 tunate people to rush from the houses or appear at the windows, the 
 soldiers pradsing and complimenting each other on their marksman- 
 ship as they fire at the unhappy fugitives. Those whose houses 
 were not yet destroyed were ordered to quit and follow the soldiers 
 to the railway station. There the men were separated from mothers, 
 wives and children, and thrown, some bound, into trains leaving in 
 
 the direction of Germany The population had to quit at a 
 
 moment's notice before the final destruction; then, to complete 
 their devastation, the German hordes fell back on the surrounding 
 villages to burn them. They t ranked down the men - some were shot, 
 some mads prisoners - and during many long hours they tortured the 
 helpless women and children." 
 
 The treatment of non-cambatants of French tovms and villages 
 was as bad as the treatment of the Belgiums. 
 
 August 36, Villers-en-Fagne : A signal front the church tower 
 
 had warned the French inhabitants of the arrival of German army. 
 Some of the French discharged their guns and killed a few German 
 soldiers. So in the evening, the Germans burned the village and 
 shot the priest and some of the inhabitants. The beautiful village 
 

 * ■ '^ *■ ' T M 1 ' ' V i*^' ' ' ' ^ 
 
 |l ■ A ^ ' ■ ‘ '. ( ' *' ,* Ak! t . I V . 
 
 K-t^f V'J ;: *'«-'»*« 1 P' '-.'V^SwtA ' 
 
 .P -ji. .': 0 >: Ama -‘ ' ■- -■ v 
 
 ’' '.■'*■• , _ \ • ■ ( ' ' t ■ -' '''I 'W^'W’’ 
 
 ■,,«'• i. t ; -£?rv,A v'i,Mi%’*f. tiu* rt<? 3 t 
 
 • >5- '^ ■ ^ \\ '...Jl-vzSi ■ 
 
 • ■ *'‘ S-' tr¥-^ I 
 
 r-^ . /t ,.: j . ; • > . -f% , ’ .'.a'^^ '/a r; JlTlT^^Tk T . 
 
 >. 
 
 ;,',->iJii;J»-vVr.:;v '.<J .w.lex^/ViCil ■ ;• 
 
 .•■:*' vV' '■•■ *.•!''. i*\\\ %y\ \ , ' ' 
 
 •■^'^V^'.’*. •J'AV'*' ,C '4 
 
 ' _ H,J J. . . ' ••I ^ r ' ' , . * ' f r : '■*..L^TiA“*i 
 
 .«!■ 3,-s«r/ ,^-3. .xuy-pl.r m: 
 
 
6 ^ 
 
 of Gue d'Ossus was also set on fire without cause. At Leppe appar- 
 ently two hundred men were shot without regard whether they were 
 guilty or innocent, 
 
 September SO, Valenciennes: "The mayor was ordered to draw 
 
 up a list of the names and addresses of all the male inhabitants 
 between the ages of 10 and 45 who still remained in the town. In 
 the night many of these escaped to Lille. Uhlan patrols visited 
 the surrounding villages, and searched every house for civilians of 
 military age. In some cases, they thrust their bayonets through thij 
 mattresses on the beds. It was reported that they succeeded in 
 capturing five hundred or six hundred men, who were taken away to 
 an unknown destination." 
 
 September S2, Combes: All the inhabitants of Combes were 
 
 arrested on September 22, and exposed on a hill to the fire of 
 French artillery and infantry. By waving their handkerchiefs, they 
 were soon recognized, but subjected to the same kind of treatment 
 on the following day. Then they were shut up in the church for 
 five days where they swallowed uneatable food. Finally the men 
 were separa.ted and transferred to Germany while the women and child' 
 ren were kept in the village church for one month. They slept on 
 benches and were not allowed to move more than a few yards from the 
 door. The unsanitary condition made the place horrible. Dysentery 
 and croup spree.d am^ong them. 
 
 The cases given above are sufficient to indicate the cruelty 
 of the Germans. The justification of them depends upon whether or 
 not the measures were adopted, by way of reprisals. If the inhabit- 
 ants in the occupied region were innocent non-combatants, every 
 effort should be made to treat them as fair as possible. But means 
 

 
 
 '*i ' vVif ’ ' ■' ■ . >? ' *^ ; ' I *,j iW 
 
 ;t/4, 1.^544' . ^1 *' 
 
 , * ' I ■• ' ' '* ' -. ,r ■ ' , ' v ■ ; . ' ■’ .* ‘'" ,'7.-^ ,. :Jt 
 
 f>4 6;4.I ■■‘^ 'V ^Jt> : '• . j* «>4:* 
 
 I, 
 
 •"•■■ ■ ■' '. * ' VV-. V- -'Ai . ’H- ♦ '. •'■ ^ 
 
 •■ ■• '•.«, '.. . ..• • ;• .f «, .-: '. V 'C-VlJI 
 
 IT*- . . /4-lc ■*.i\, ,‘4i 'C lAiis*/. Wc.fi:.: _£•/ .¥^-*-i' £■»> *" 
 
63 
 
 of retaliation may be taken whenever the civilian population at- 
 tempted to attack the troops of the invaders. Even then, we must 
 bear in mind that the act of reprisals oug.ht to be proportional to 
 the acts condemned. 
 
 (3) Reprisals Against Bombardment of Towns. - The bomba.rdment 
 
 of towns in order to put an indirect pressure on the commandant to 
 
 induce him to surrender for the sake of the suffering inhabitants 
 
 is a measure of peculiar cruelty. And it is, as Professor Hall 
 
 26 
 
 observes, not only unnecessary, but often unsuccessful. It sur- 
 vived from the practices which were formally permitted and which 
 lasted until the beginning of the present century. It was ls.rgely 
 used during Franco-Prussian War of 1670, but cannot be excused. 
 
 In 1696, the Institute of International Law at its meeting- 
 in Venice condemned the bombardment of open towns by a nava2 force 
 for the purpose of securing ransom or of merely bringing a pressuae 
 to bear upon a belligerent. But, however, it sanctioned the prac- 
 tice 'aux fins d'obtenir par voie de requisitions ou de contribu- 
 
 27 
 
 tions ce qui est necessaire pour la flotte'. ' 
 
 At the Hague Conference, an attempt was made to keep the 
 practice of bombardment within a narrow limit so as to be in con- 
 formity with the accepted modern usage. In the first place, the 
 bomba.rdment by any means whatsoever of undefended towns, villages 
 and buildings was entirely prohibited. In case of bombardment 
 which does not formi a part of a general assualt, the leading 
 officer of the besiegers is required to notify the authorities of 
 
 26 ^ " 
 
 Hall, International La.w . (sth Edition). 532 
 
 27 
 
 Kail, International Law, (6th Edition), 531 
 

 
 
 S ' s ^ lSk ^ in . * j«.SJ 
 
 ■\ r . .’i •■ •'?•' ., 
 
 ' ) 4 i ? 0 . «# Ci « 
 
 ^ ' f f liij> ^ . '1 V tf 7 ■■* u ;f ‘ t tk^a Cl t • /ofwRj&a c 
 
 U ).': ' 
 
 }’-*' t ' f 5 . ’>0 
 
 ■j 
 
 .1 
 
 5 *.*■■[ c xii ", j 
 
 » fc - ^ L . ^ . ' * '• AjS ^ HV ! , ■• ; - 2 ’’ -'*2 . ' N ' C < 
 
 I 
 
 ■ iUH V '. tv , 
 
 • ., w%t \ tv ■ ^' * 1 * ' * ' ' * *' ' T *' 
 
 • ft,' ■;,!.♦<■ iSn ' iijjW jj^'f,|i'| 
 
 .i;/.-;} f<i 
 
 i'fc if <4 ,-^* k ‘ tftX < f < 
 
 ''■ , ' • • . / •■ ■■ ^ ■ . ►•’(*••. '■•' ^'t '*• 
 
 ?* ■'• i ‘ 
 
 t ■’ 'tfS^ 'S »5,A1 
 
 ■* V 4 »^« « -' ^ •■ ,)V:«^W'*>,V 
 
6 ^ 
 
 the town indicating his intention. During the bomhardnient , all 
 possible steps must be taken to spare churches, buildings set 
 apart for objects of charity, art and sciences and historicaJ monu- 
 ments. Hospitals or places provided for the wounded, not used for 
 
 28 
 
 military purposes, designated with marks visible to the besiegers 
 
 and communica.ted to them before-hand should also be spared. These 
 
 regulations, however, unlike those proposed by the Institute of 
 
 International Law, refer only to land warfare and do not take up 
 
 the question of bombardment from the sea. 
 
 Nevertheless, we may lay down as a rule, that the bombardment 
 
 of an undefended town or village for the purpose of destroying a 
 
 39 
 
 few soldiers who were happened to stay there is unjustifiable. 
 
 During the World War the Germans were charged with bombard- 
 ment in October 1914, of the undefended towns of Belgrade, Chabatz 
 
 30 
 
 and Losuitza in Servia. The reason given for the bombardn.ent of 
 Belgrade was that it contained an ancient Turkish fortress. But 
 the fortress, as Professor Reiss of the University of Laussanne 
 observed, was nothing but a historical monument. As the result of; 
 the bombardment, sixty public buildings and 640 priva.te houses 
 Were badly dama.ged or destroyed. Even the University, the nationa! 
 museum, the old roj'-al palace, the stc;te tobacco manufactury, and 
 the Russian and British Legations were not spared. Twenty-five 
 civilians were killed and 126 wounded. In Chabatz, an "Open town 
 of no strategic importance," the houses damaged or destroyed 
 
 26 IT915, 107 
 
 Garner, International Law in the European War, Arne r. J. of Int. L. 
 
 Phillipson, International Law and the Great War, 132 
 30 
 
 Garner, International Law and the World War , Volume I, 416-419 
 
SS' 
 
 aciountsd to 486 
 
 There were, of course, no few count er-ch3.rges against the 
 Entente Allies in respect to unlawful 'bombardment. The Russians 
 treacherously bombarded the undefended town of Numel . The Ru.3si;an3 
 after havingbeen accused by the Germans, pleaded as an excuse for 
 the action that the civilian population of the town had taken part 
 in fighting that compelled them to adopt exceptional measures. The 
 British and French were also charged with bombarding Gallipoli, in 
 April 1915, In the bombardment, numerous women and children were 
 killed, although the town could not be regarded as fortified or as , 
 a place of military importance. “They were likewise charged with 
 bombarding the ’open’ towns of Dar~es-3alaam, Victoria, and Swak- 
 opmund in German Southwest Africa.” 
 
 Some bombardments, of course, were carried out by reason of 
 reprisals. Each belligerent, in order to save its own towns from 
 being repeatedly bombarded, would think of a means to bring these 
 vigorous acts to a stop. The best means were reprisals. 
 
 (4) Reprisals Against the Confiscation of Private Property. *• 
 In time of war some private property may be captured and confiscat- 
 ed. The imoortant laws in reerard to learal capture and confiscation 
 by naval force are as follows. 
 
 1. ”The private property of every citizen unless such proper- 
 ty is protected by the Declaration of Paris; 
 
 2. "Contraband of war; 
 
 3. ’’Property engaged in the violation of a blockade; 
 
 4. ’’Property engaged in certain acts of unneutral service; 
 
 5. ’’All property found on board a ship of war or a public 
 auxilliary vessel, save when exempted from capture by the terms of 
 

 
 
 
 • -*> - ••* *V * \ " ■ ■i‘‘^ 
 
 ■ -S /^^/'• 'v::,.,(’'* .^i-ijiV 'i?* .‘■9A^^ 
 
 ’ =>' , ;:,• f *. vf^ *«iAjSj 2:^*^ -' ■ 
 
 I-Iwil tJiVlT* lo. ii£) 4‘-- •■i,!'.tk»n !L«< .''i, ft i,,‘fciA‘r,,r.<... 'iii' / .^’_li^»^?■ 
 
 ’.“I": 
 
 ^CK, . 
 
 ►%k-‘^v*l_ 0o.v^;*5 ^ 
 
Geneva convention of 1916 or the Haa:ue convention of 1907.” 
 
 Besides these there are two other rules dealine; with contract 
 
 31 
 
 
 in time of war. 
 
 6. ”As cjoods belonged to the alien enemy trade is confiscable 
 it follows that any contract made upon such trading is illegal and 
 
 invalid and that it will not be enforced by the courts either durin: 
 or after the war. 
 
 7, ”A11 contracts made between people in the belligerent i 
 
 countries are void.” 
 
 Nevertheless, private debts ought to be distinguished from 
 private property. The English contends that private debt cannot 
 
 be confiscated though private property can be. Thus "when France 
 seized both in 1793, Great Britain retaliated, and at last, in 
 April 1814, compelled the removal of sequestrations and the liquid- 
 ation of claims.” In 1807 Great Britain confiscated the Danish 
 prox^erty in British x>crt8 to the amount of £1,335,000. Denmark 
 retaliated by sequestering debts due from Denmark to British sub- 
 jects which was hardly amounted to £300,000. The validity of the 
 Banish sequestration V7as denied by the British court that endeavore 
 to make a distinction between private debts and other property in 
 accordance with a decision by Lord Ellenborough, which hs.d received 
 just criticism. The only recent instance of such confiscation was 
 furnished by the act of the Confederate congress of August 1631, 
 announcing that "property of whatever nature, except public stocks 
 and securities held by an alien enemy since the Slst of May, 1531, 
 
 1-5 Geore;e B. Davis, Elements of International Lav;, 360 
 33 ^ ■“ 
 
 6-7 Bentwick, War and Private Property, 48 
 33 ' - ^ — 
 
 Taylor, International Public Law . 433 
 
 33 
 
 33 
 
 31 
 
. 1^1 «.W ..... j!. • ; ■' ’ ’ * • '*'\^ii«. /.•.5 ■ . ': A'; 
 
 r 
 
 >>*.-■ .: I^c.. i\-r •. 'fl >,.» ' ''' 
 
 r- ; ■- ■ .* .„V4if #W M iX' e«, 
 
 ,^..r ■ . -^ 1 ' 
 
 f '. ' f • ••• ^ ■ ' . *' .!•»'.' *' "' fW '■-.* '' ,/T .f <t 
 
 ■• ‘V:'' *'5* ,•* ^». '. .■' .V ■; ^V'.. •-‘♦A • • "'"’T^' '" ' ■ 
 
 ' -:t>ii»it»a . G)S6 . >'fci . 1. "jiifei !, ■„' - , ..'. .■■ 
 
 ;d : ■" ••"kttriahw- ii 
 
shall he sequestered and appropriated, "under which receivers 
 would be appointed and lands sold. Although the act was propably 
 within the war power of the Confederate governinent , yet it did not 
 escape condemnation at home and abroad. The sale of lands under 
 the act was held invalid and void. It Justified the Union govern- 
 ment in making reprisals if it liked. 
 
 "Modern practice does not go beyond sequestrating during the 
 War the income of real property owned by private enemies without 
 limits, in deference to the principle that after encouraging per- 
 sons to buy land it is not honorable to take advantage of war to 
 dex>rive them of it," 
 
 But, it is an established rule that shares and stocks owned 
 by enemy aliens are not confiscable though the payment of dividends 
 may be suspended. 
 
 '^5; Aerial Attacks as Acts or Reprisals. - At the beginning 
 
 of the World War the British and French aviators declared that 
 
 they confined their attacks to fortified or defended towns within 
 
 the enemy's lines. But when the Germans directed violence from 
 
 air-ships against, undefended cities and towns destroying the lives 
 
 of a large number of civilians including many women and children, 
 
 the Allies, after a period of hesitation, launched, in retaliation, 
 
 35 
 
 similar attacks against German cities. Stuttgart, Carlsruhe, and 
 Freiburg in Baden were bombed in the year 1916. The royal palaces 
 of the first two cities mentioned were both damaged and many civil- 
 ians were said to have been killed. 
 
 34 ” 
 
 Garner, Internation al Law and the World War, Volume I, 4S8-494 
 45 
 
 Foulke, Internat ional Law , Volume II, SSI, U.5 
 
■m •. Hr/: . • * 
 
 .rsyr: ^ 
 
 ■ '■• 7/ 
 
 ^ -dv » ^ii 
 
 ^ .• • -l^- *-*Y>'. ■ ' •■■ \f..l:f-l- •■ ■>■•'■ •'JTi*" ..>^W T’ ^ 
 
 
 ;X,v.,... 
 
 a . ' V "v V’ ,^-.. 
 
 . *' v'i^^^'V'' : >1 
 
 '.•i i i !'■ )■ #•' • •4'^ .diJ 
 
 „o'/vi(i6 x/,/,^ v:^T6 
 
 tf-.-e:, i viii' Itc^VA*; - ■■' tvi'0'4 nx;v^- 'sfiivAf'X.- 
 ...... . „..* ... .„ 
 
 f 
 
 \ ' ^ f t %-•! c ic X >*:f <, ; i'. , ■■hlSJ, ^ .'^rjjji’l 
 
 
 *. y '<’'»*. '■ 
 
 y*'. ii.;.*v-*^vf\r« 
 
63 
 
 In April 14, 1917, *’a large squadron of British and French 
 aeroplanes again raided the town of Freiburg as an act of reprisal 
 in consequence of the attacks of German submarines on British 
 hospital ships in violation of the tenth Hague convention." 
 
 The multiplication of German raids upon undefended English 
 and French towns stimulated a. strong popular demand in the Allied 
 countries for retalia.tion. On September 30, French aviators threw 
 a large quantity of projectiles upon the city of Stuttgart as a 
 reprisal for the German borabardment of the undefended town of Bar- 
 le-Due . On the same day raany German military bases and railway 
 stations were damaged. 
 
 In October 1917, French aviators, in retaliation against the 
 German bombardmient of Dunkirk, bombarded the German town of Mulheim 
 the aviation grounds at Behlestadt, munitions depots at Ruffach, 
 the railway station at Thionville, and the town of Offenburg in 
 Baden. In the meantime it was reported in London that the British 
 Cabinet had adopted a general policy of reprisals, but no official 
 announcement of such policy was made. Nevertheless, in December 1, 
 1917, bombardment of German towns as a reprisal for some particular 
 acts of the Germans became so frequent that the world was led to 
 believe that the British policy of air-raid reprisals had actually 
 been carried out. The British government, however, felt reluctant 
 to follow the German practice of bombarding without discrimination 
 open and undefended towns far behind the milita.ry lines and a large 
 majority of the English people was opposed to the policy of compet- 
 ition with the Germans in the barbarous methods of aerial warfare. 
 
 For the purpose of preventing the Allies from carrying out 
 the policy of reprisal against Germany, the German authority adopt- 
 
TV' 
 
 
 
 i..' •/' 7 ', 
 
 ' ^ / > -' fM 
 
 .V <‘4 ■• 
 
 
 
 'f^' 
 
 rntx H. ■ '■■■" .’ ' , •■ s tiC'' T^- . '^♦■, 't''-£'^'''*i 5 K' ■'■ ■' Vv*» '--!j 
 
 ^ ■ ... vr*,. .■, 
 
 .w ^ •.* >!■» Yr.. .'. T '■*■ .. ";.iv ■■ ■ ■ ^ '*ji^ »' 
 
 ‘ V. » ' 
 
 
 t- '■ ^ ^ /■ 'i;; "j: 
 
 1^ <« '’ ^ * ^* Iff* '^'jU-''’' is 
 
 *’ ■ ■ '’ "'*■ '■ *^^?S‘-" 4 .^i.I. 5 - ■ a&i^»t‘i^.{*’i« 
 
 . t 
 
 
 
 ■'.“ ^'.7 ’-j0i^<i^ ..r4^ 
 
 ^ j •>'"i?)» 1 ■•*'», J r. t L, . .' '/?# At‘*. . X <IL- '*. ♦ k ». . ‘-#' 4 r I a 4 iSi^«,.. fc— 
 
 fe-.. ...^ ,.,i|^.;-. . , 
 
 i* >i . *i 5 , . . Jx’r V •' ’ "■ ' 4 .'?'*'. ■ 'ir* ••'■/iug’s' 
 
 /.i^vvy^ rfjt(!J,na tgiaam^. ';^V«i&%-, 
 
 '■' ' V 01 ^' ■ > i ' s- ' *■ >' "* ■' ' -.tCS-" 
 
ed, in February 1918, the expedient of putting a large number of 
 British and French prisoners of war in Stuttgart, Carlsruhe, and 
 other towns which were exposed to aerial attack and notice to this 
 effect Was given to the British and French government. This exped- 
 ient, however, yielded no fruit, as the air raids upon German towns 
 multiplied very fast. 
 
 Whenever the Allied policy of reprisals were carried out, the 
 Germans resorted to counter- reprisals and their last attack on 
 Paris was defended as a reprisal for the continual bombing of Ger- 
 man towns by the Allies. The "continued bombing of German towns," 
 on the other side was defended by the Allies as reprisals against 
 the "long- continued raids upon English and French towns which had 
 begun in the early months of the war." 
 
 Different opinions have been expressed regarding the exped- 
 iency and morality of reprisals. Most writers of international law 
 maintain that such measures should be resorted to not for the pur- 
 pose of satisfying vengeance but for the purpose of deterring "a 
 repetition by the enemy of the acts against which it is directed." 
 On the other hand, those who defend the policy argue that it is 
 the only effective means of compelling the offending state to 
 observe the laws of war, that instances of reprisals can be found 
 in abundance in the history of every great war, and that the right 
 of reprisals is fully sanctioned by practice. "It is, however," 
 says Professor Garner, "a measure of doubtful expediency, since it 
 often tends to multiply rather than dim.inish wrongs and to cause 
 the War to degenerate into barbarism. The result often injures 
 the innocent rather than the guilty, and this is especially true 
 of aerial reprisals against open towns." 
 
ii X, 
 
 r ■ > • ^ ?• , I i 
 
 
 i:,V ’ , 
 
 ■ r»i \T 1 j| 
 
 ..: 
 
 w • * A ..■ . V' . J* *’■■; ’ •! '■ '■ ■ .i;r i ■*' ■ •<‘»W''" 1 
 
 : rv'r ., ni. .: is^iMSirJ 
 
 » ’ ' !■.. ■• .' 4 ^ ■• ^ ^ ■' '1 
 
 
 if 
 
 ■ ‘'".V‘- 1 
 
 H. . ’. V ' ''*' , , , ,-, ^ 
 
 t/| 1 * 1 ,*'“*' **^ '■■■*’•"• ' ■ ■’ ■ I'l' :.■*>'■„* t ,i 
 
 I,'.' 
 
 
 j-Wj >.Av 4 . ■^= :' 6 ;ete^i-^ 
 
 ,. tM ■ .'■ ne •■-.'■ A*",-’- ■■■'--» ■ '.'j fltrT 
 
 r 
 
 
 -t- 
 
 ^ ‘ 'jT 
 
 - ':As . 
 
 
 
 
 . ’ '’Aa - • - * \4 : '■■ 
 
 Jf] "fA 
 
 
 ; • : . '•: ♦• ■ ; • • . . ••- T*^*' 1 «^ ■ i® 05 ‘V^ 4 '- 
 
 W’. ^ 
 
 l-'ir / ’ r}.~* 
 
 K 5 C 
 
 K'i 
 
 ■ t l w -' 
 
 • f ■ ^d' ' 
 
 ■; \~ s - ‘ V' , • . 
 
 '^ .• ( *‘Sfl .. '•Iv'i. K' 
 
 *f i 7 , ■* , . ^X' ■ ^ * 
 
 41 > 
 
 OiJ 
 
 ml 
 
 ; ^***^'-- * '• ■ V’ t^’-- 'rr r ‘i . ,■- v.;-;'J’A* .jt-if' . .> m • *4<i' oB- \ 
 
 ■" "* e* -. ^jg^^cV,o. i.ii ,. ».<»" ■ ,. ; ; $< tD,-i^‘iii'^- 'J 
 
 ' ■ '‘f...’’*'. • ^ y'’^ ^'>'^. 1 ®'' •■ <v ■ •* 
 
 -.AJ ■ A. '.'jf kv..’ '.■ ■• V, -V- nil'.'-- * .. . ,*;^i . •■ ■->' . 
 
 ■ • 'v',i .-. ■ ' , f-Af •; > i.: •»^‘ ■ •‘T-', 
 
 (i'rt -i;. ; I '- , ' . tij 
 
 1 ^. '” lili 
 
 ii iX 
 
70 
 
 36 
 
 (s) Reprisals Against the Use of Mines, - On August S3, 1914, 
 the British Press Bureau issued the following sts^tement. "The 
 Admiralty wish to draw attention to their previous warnings to 
 neutrals of the danger of traversing the North Sea, The Germans 
 are continuing their practice of laying mines indiscriminately upon 
 the ordinary tra.de routes. These mines are not laid in cormection 
 with any definite milita.ry scheme, such as the closing of military 
 ports, or a distinct operation against a fighting fleet, hut appear 
 to he scattered on the chance of catching individual British war or 
 merchant vessels. In consequence of this policy neutral ships, no 
 matter what their destination, are exposed to the gravest dangers. 
 Two Danish vessels, the Steamship Mar land and the Steamship Bro- 
 herg , have within the last 34 hours been destroyed hy these deadly 
 engines in the North Sea while travelling of ordinary routes at a 
 considerable d-istance from the British coast,,.,,. The A.dmiralty, 
 while reseiving to themselves the utmost liberty of retaliatory 
 action against this new form of warfare, announces that they have 
 not so far laid any mines during the present war and that they are 
 endev curing to keep the sea routes open for peaceful commerce." 
 
 This anncuncetrent is true; for the German mines were constant- 
 ly gathered by British sweepers from the North Sea and the Atlantic 
 routes. As "floa-ting" mines were forbidden by the Hague conventiori, 
 the Germans used what they called the Anchored, mines. But since 
 they were buried, in the shifting bottom of the deep water they were 
 easily torn from their mooring and cast adrift so that they appear- 
 ed to be as dangerous as the floating mines. Alread^^ in August 
 
 36 
 
 Coleman Phillipson, International Law and the Great War . 376-363 
 

 |(fv |f ^.li;»J ’>-^ . 'l «B4“‘I* Si^*o^iv 0/ 5i^ 
 
 i!} I J.y<i2:: n«4t f * vTOij«iS|*f^ife5)i.pV 
 
 r 
 
 t.: 
 
 ^ 6 6Tie^^aJ■c4^ 
 
 ' ■? *' ' V '■ ■■' ‘ w'^’iky[''‘‘ 
 
 . .-ir ir i. , A Yi5li::«^fY 
 
 M* ep0^%s> ;»•*«&, 
 
 L : j Ifc '■ ‘-r'l y ,' ,. ,r...; , '‘4' ■■ .''*.... ■ n'. ■’ ’ 
 
 I. 4*otJ »*qi§ itfr ''''.'«5^,i^^'^ 
 
 I I Tt 0 e. :# 
 
 «V ^ 2 g.W# 
 
 ■ 'MS v::.‘vd>;Mjs 7^^^ 
 
 <■ ■■.,•“ A'';;** a ‘.■‘''•i 
 
 \ S|^ ^ .W 't'/ ■•,* ‘''h 
 
 . iij..ui ..A/;r7 •] 
 
 /■■iCiA 
 
7/ 
 
 many vessels were blown up either at a distance from the north-east 
 and e^st coa.st, or from the Tyne break water. British trawlers 
 engaged in mine- sweeping were destroyed; a ITorv^egian steamer, two 
 trawlers, one belonged to a Danish another to an Irishman were 
 sunlc; and the Pathfinder, a British cruiser and the Wilson liner 
 Pijno were both severely struck. 
 
 On October the British Admiraltj'’ announced that due to 
 this barbarous conduct. Great Britain for the sake of self-defence 
 amd by way of reprisals was obliged to the use of mines in the 
 southern area of the North Sea. Their positions were fixed and 
 regulations were drawn for the safety of neutral vessels. 
 
 On October 17, the Rusian government adopted the similar 
 measure in the Baltic. The following' statement was issued, ”In 
 view of the pressure of German submarines at the entrance to the 
 Gulf of Finland, and the placing by the enemy of bombs and torped- 
 oes near the Russian coast, the Imperial government announces that 
 the Russian naval authorities are compelled in their turn to have 
 reeource largely to similar steps. Consequently navigation in the 
 North Zone bounded by the Russian coast by parallel 56 degrees 50 
 minutes north latitude, and by the meridian 21 degrees. east longi- 
 tude is to be regarded as dangerous as the entrance to the Gulf of 
 Riga and the coast waters of the Aland Archipelago. In order that 
 persons not taking part in the hostilities ma.y, not run the risk of 
 War, the entrance and exits of the Gulf of Finland and Riga are 
 to be regarded as closed from the movement of the a.nn ou no erne nt . 
 
 At the end of October, the Germans had spread mines indis- 
 criminately in the open sea on the main trade route from America 
 to Liverpool via the north of Ireland. Many neutrcd vessels and 
 
4 : 
 
 ... i: 
 
 ■fjJ 
 
 t;*r: - 1 ; . ? ' - -i -..i'r -,vt 
 
 Vy ,,V' ■••■ .1 >u^ < .. • •■•% *4 •, 
 
 
 • - :U .f: '• . '^^ -51 y'Ui. 7%lfc ■ 
 
 k* .<1 
 
 
 *'. ' Ui 
 
 !'• ti 
 
 ^iv, 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 ’/ » 
 
 ■ >■- -Af^i 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 lX9a 
 
 & 
 
 -, 35 »« ' X’P ' 
 
 '■ V*ff- 
 
 -i ‘ ■ '■*' «t V '’t 
 
 
 
 
 
 *V iti" -.vs^iu^? a-# :.;fr .oi 4 » 4 ^ 
 
 ‘ K$<t Jb M (fit. .*'■; 
 
 fl !-t \ V * 
 
 • I * jf li * 
 
 U 
 
 ^rT* 
 
 i;j*i vWl 
 
 ^v^£ £ * iFg =g?^Mfc^?*g»sge?9fga ^ — , .„..i 1 ^ - ■ ■ ■ . ^--”mr-- 
 
 '? ^* 4 ..<Tr 
 
 ■j* ..'I -is^-, ., f'i; ‘ 
 
 & 1 S^ 
 
7 ^ 
 
 pa^sangers were sunk. By the way of reprisals and the safety of 
 neutral trade, the British authorities declared the whole North Sea 
 a military area. 
 
 Two questions ought to he answered: first, has a belligerent 
 a right to close the North Sea? Secondly, had the Entente Allies 
 the right to adopt the measure of reprisals a.gainst Germany for the 
 using of mines? In answering the first question we may say that 
 although the high seas are open and free to all in peace times, yet 
 the use of them by neutrals in time of war is subject tc many re- 
 strictions. In suspicious cases the neutral vessels are liable tc 
 be searchedin determining'^''^hether they have carried contrabands or 
 engaged in other unneutral service. They are also lis-ble tc be 
 captured in case of attempting to run a blockade. The si2;e of the 
 blockaded area eannot be clearly fixed. But due to the modern 
 conditions of warfare, the rapidity of movement and communication, 
 the great fire range, etc., the area is likely to be a very exten- 
 sive one. It may be certain that when the sea., irrespective of the 
 size, is declared as a blockade under emergencies, "international 
 law requires neutral vessels to keep away from it under the penalty 
 of capture and condemnation." Again, neutral vessels would run a 
 great risk in entering into the vicinity of localities where the 
 naval operations were conducted. It is their duties to keep away 
 from the scene of battle. From this point of view, the closing of 
 the North Sea by the British authority is justifiable. 
 
 Then we come to the second question; that is whether the 
 Entente Allies had the right to adopt the measure of reprisals 
 against Germany for her using of mines, Mr. Colemsji Phillipson has 
 expressed his opinion regarding this question. His idea, so far as 
 
y |f‘‘ • ■ ’ ••' ’ I'y ' ■'■:{' ■ ■ l 1-' 
 
 . II. i*' i / » ' « * ‘ \k .\\7^ ' - *V^ 
 
 '.v;' 
 
 ' ’'■ •^Jb''; .' '^" . . ■’' •‘''” . ;. ■ w,;; „’'j 
 
 I > I ^ fl f ' _. . 1 .i V' 1 . ' , ■ ■ , A" ii 
 
 ■>) 
 
 
 '•“ I 
 
 rOi,- 
 
 
 
 I If''-/ ■ >-■?■■. • »■ '.rr','- .' r 
 
 ’ “< i ■ ' /ja iT>"| \, . t /.. , 
 
 >■.:, 'C- "li >vi , 1 ^ , 
 
 ?:(jO bSl'jStj'b •'iv'.rlMy-l- ;• ' .. ..'.li.5. 1. , •._ ,y_' 
 
 > i. I. 
 
 
73 
 
 we can see, is correct. He says, "Kow, when one belligerent permits 
 in lawless and unprincipled proceeding, it would he sheer madness 
 on the part of the adversary to adopt a policy of acquiescence or 
 tacit disapproval. If self-preserv3.tion cannot he secured on the 
 one side and decent conduct enforced on the other hut oy retaliat- 
 ory measures, then such measures are perfectly justifiable a.nd leg- 
 itimate when they are applied with no more rigor than the exigen- 
 cies of the occasion demand." 
 
 37 
 
 (?) Reprisals Against Contrabands On- Foodstuffs . - During the 
 World War, it had been announced that the CTerma.n government was 
 going to take over on February 1, 1915 the grsiin and flour imported 
 into the country. Now foodstuffs, having been in the list of cond- 
 itional contraband, were liable to seizure if evidence could be 
 praduced to show that they were destined for the use of the army 
 and navy or of the government department of the enemy sts.te . If 
 the Declaration of London on the point had the binding force, then 
 all corn and flour imported into Germany after February 1 were 
 liable to seizure and condemnation. Even though the Declaration 
 of London should fail in binding the belligerents in the case, the 
 long-established principle of international law might apply. In 
 1793 the United States maintained that provisions might be declared 
 contraband, if there was reasonable expectation to reduce the figh^ 
 ing force of the enemy by virtue of famine. During Russo-Japanese 
 War, Russia declared all foodstuffs to be absolute contraband. 
 
 The United. States protested by reason that the warlike nature, use 
 and destination were the only proper tests of contraband character 
 
 37 
 
 Phillipscn, International Law and the Ore at War , 345-347 
 

 
 Ct* X>iT i £.f/., ' 
 
 ;V, ' l,;V,^’.i»^(^^ 
 
 •?« 0ii'-‘" ^ e/' ii;-,i;4 (T>llpi/.' .- 
 
 '\^t: v' 
 
7f- 
 
 of goods. Consequently Russia enforced new regulations but still 
 held that provisions consigned to the enemy government were goods 
 of contraband. ; 
 
 Turning back to the case mentioned, it was found that the 
 taking over of food supplies by the German government in 1915, was 
 not for the purpose of feeding the civilian population. Their main 
 desire was to supply the need of the army. Now, as we know that 
 use is one of the proper tests of contre.band character of goods, we 
 naturally inquire whether the grain and flour were indespensable : 
 for the Germans for carrying: out the war. "Food is just as essent- 
 ial for the forces as bullets are for their guns, and therefore 
 is equally seizeable if encountered to transit to them," Further- 
 more, so far as the commodities were consigned to and under the 
 exclusive control of the government we can naturally conclude that 
 they were destined for the government’s soldiers. The question 
 whether such use is exclusive or not would not be rega,rded. If the 
 provisions would also be used to feed the civilian popula-tion, then 
 the responsibility for the seizure or the deprivation suffered by 
 the non- camba.t ante will be placed upon their own government for 
 taking over such comir.odities , for it is impossible for the adver- 
 sary to draw a clear line of demarcation between that which would 
 be for the use of the force or that which might be set apart for 
 the civilian population. Thus the conclusion ma,y be reached that 
 the grain and flour, _ under such circumstances were liable to seiz- 
 ure and condemnation. 
 
 Accordingly the British government decided that the Wilhei ming 
 bound for Hamburg with a cargo of foodstuffs from the United States 
 should be seized and her cargo condemned as contraband. 
 

 ... /^T] •(■•^jp^.^Ty/’wir^ 
 
 I V' fsilsiL 
 
 
 jpi-- 
 
 ’ * •' i 
 
 
 F»‘ W ,«'■., ■'♦?' ^ . ’ • -^1- WIVT ^mWMM . 'It ' ■ il ' > H ■'■ * 
 
 , j( '•'sbf\ - ' -■ • 'M' ' .'''• .it M'”! 
 
 ' ^ , *>•■[■'/..' ' f- - ■■ ■ f ' „Tr^»TRj 
 
 . 'i '■ r ‘ ■' .'ll ■. ' "iv* ' .'■'tV^ ' , ! " . 
 
 A . •« V Ai ft 1 t 1 , ^ . . “ • .£ ? V ■ ,,#1 t' r!f » I ^■, ' 
 
 
 
 
 ^ Xxci:i ^i^mt^v-.. ' ■ ■" '' ' " ' ‘ '' 
 
 
 1.- 1 ' ^ i ■ „■ iXiP^ 
 
 . ■ 'li'^'ri ■.’=' ■"•'■ / .;■' ■' )Wi • ‘'rim 
 
 . .♦.I- ,■ ■••,■. v« , . i *^'\ A ■', / ■■ \ .?/j ’, , •x-^.liip;l 
 
Germany realized that the action of Great Britain was in 
 accordance with the principles of international law. On Fehruary 
 6; the former issued a subsequent decree which repee^led the former 
 provision requiring that grain and flour should be delivered to 
 certain organizations under the direct control of the governn.ent. 
 
 Had other circumstances been normal, this repeal would put food- 
 stuffs back in the list of conditional contraband. But other cir- 
 cumstances were not normal. On September 1914 the German cruiser 
 Karlsruhe sunk the Butch vessel Mari a which was carrying a cargo of 
 grain from California to Dublin and Belfast, The Germans did this / 
 Without examining- whether the commodity was desined for the British 
 government or not. Therefore the British government "felt that the 3 ' 
 would be justified in adopting m.easures or reprisa.ls, if necessary, 
 by declaring foodstuffs to be absolute contraband.” 
 
 (s) Fleprisals AgeAnat the Destruction of Hospital Ships. - 
 The German authorities declared that they had secured conclusive 
 proof that in several instances the enemy hospital ships were often ' 
 being misused to transport munitions and troops, "They also state 
 that they have placed these proofs, through diplomatic channels, 
 before the British and French governments, and have, at the same 
 time, declared that traffic of hospital ships on the military route^i 
 for the forces fighting in France and Belgium within a line drawn 
 
 between Flamborough Hean a.nd Terchelling on the other hand and from 
 
 36 
 
 Ushant to Land's Head on the other, will no longer be tolerated.” 
 
 The British government, however, announced that they had not 
 received such notice through diploasatic channels, or otherwise, froi: 
 
 36 
 
 Naval War College . Internati onal Law Documents . 1918, 90 
 
?6 
 
 the German government. The 3 ^ also denied strongly that British 
 hospital ships had been employed in transporting munitions and 
 troops. According to the principles of the Geneva convention re- 
 garding maritime warfare "belligerents have the right to search 
 hospital ships." Thus the German government had. a remedy if the 
 hospital ships were suspected. But it is a matter of regret that 
 the Germans never utilized such remedy. Looking at the German sta1& 
 merit, it is quite clear that the German government had the intention 
 of violating the usa.ge of war and the principles of international 
 1 aw . 
 
 Owing to these circumstances, the British government was com- 
 pelled to request the United States government to inform the German 
 government that she had decided that if the German policy was car- 
 ried out, reprisals would be irmnediately taken by the British a.uthc^' 
 ities concerned. 
 
 This Was simply a threat; but the threat became a fact when 
 
 the Germans continued to sink British ships. "A large squadron of 
 
 British and French aeroplanes" says Professor Garner, "again raided; 
 
 the town of Freiburg as an act of reprisal in consequence of the 
 
 attack of German submarines on British hospital ships in violation 
 
 39 
 
 of the Hague convention," This happened in April 14, 1917. 
 
 (9) Repriss.ls Against the Use of Gas. - In one of the Hague 
 Declarations, 1699, the powers exce^r-t Gres,t Britain and the United 
 States, agreed to prohibit the use of projectiles solely intended 
 to spread asphyxia, ting or noxious gases. Great Britain finally 
 acceded. It is interesting to note that all the comba.tants in the 
 early part of the World War had ratified and had not subsequently 
 
 3S 
 
 Garner, Internati unal Law and the World War . 4S0 
 
J 
 
•77 
 
 denounced this Declaration. 
 
 Notwithstandingly, according to the Report of the Belgium 
 Commission of 24 April 1915, Germany ”in Belgium and France, and 
 also in conjunction with the Austro-Hungarian troops in Galicia 
 and Poland, made use of gases apparently composed of Chlorine, for- 
 mal vapour. Nitrous vapour. Sulphurous Anhydrite and others in 
 
 40 
 
 ■bornhs shells, tubes and other methods," Turkey also used asphyx- 
 iating gas in fighting. These gases not only asphyxiated but caus- ; 
 ed great suffering to those who inhaled them. Their use, therefore I 
 besides violating the Hague Declaration was in d-irect contradiction 
 to the principle of the Declarg.tion of St. Petersburg, 1668, and to: 
 
 the provision of Haeue Regulations, paragraphs (a) and (e) of arti- ; 
 41 
 
 cle 23, Under this condition. Great Britain, France and Russia 
 
 were "forced in self-defence to resort to the same methods of war- 
 42 
 
 fare , 
 
 (lO) Reprisals Against the Refusal of Quarter, - It is contra- 
 dictory to the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge 
 to give no qucirter. No one in command of a body of troops has a 
 
 right to declare that it will not give and respect quarter, Quarter 
 
 43 
 
 can only be refused under two conditions, first, when some conduct 
 
 40 
 
 Hall, International Law , 539, and N,2, on the same page 
 
 41 
 
 The Peace Conference at the Hague - Law a,nd Customs of War - Sec- 
 tion II On Hostilities - Chapter I Of means of injuring the 
 Enemy, Sieges and Bombardment - Article 23 provides "Besides 
 the Prohibitions provided by special conventions, it is es- 
 pecially prohibited (a) To employ poison or poisoned arms; 
 Te) To employ arms, projectiles or material of a nature to 
 cause superfluous injury 
 
 42 
 
 Foulke, International Law, 261. N.5 
 
 43 " 
 
 Naval War College . Internationa l Law . (2d Edition), 93 
 

 
 
 i ^ nj 
 
 
 ■:vm 
 
 I h _ ^ 
 
 -, „. '-‘y •!■'»=■. . f 
 
 V. I ’ 
 
 
 m 
 
 'm 
 
 Ml. 
 
 
 
 .t'J 
 
 ^ * t ^ y > 
 
 V. ’ % 
 
 i 
 
 ■‘4* *■*' ■"' ' ^' . “V.--- -*t. 'a ^ 't - .'^t ‘ ^ *^'i 
 
 •*., ■ r.-ifevicA : ■ 
 
 
 1 r**- .s • *-r W . : *’ . ,t'i4/ri'«. . :. ' • : ‘-T 
 
 V'-„-A;' ,'•■>$>» :•»* 
 
 ''rf 
 
 *' -jir *' ‘ t ^ • ■’ '-<j • I • ■■* 4'^ tW® 
 
 1 '■'*!• ^ " >' ■ -mi i ’ ' ^ ' 'vLVyr^ 
 
 I ~ ■ 1 * ' J4i '* -'Ti ‘ .♦ r^ / ’ff.H.t ''^irP’' ' *' ' 
 
 #vf 
 
 
 
 
 - V' ■ *• ' ' „ a, 
 
 'U ri; 'V i^^;^ t 
 
 
 
 
 H!i 
 
 t'l af-itiL fr .-• '-^b i:>.% v 
 
 I - . . .... : :, 
 
 •faj 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 'j?'.'.0>r 
 
 
 
 
 - - >- 
 
 1^ ' 
 
 
 ■', .» •( 
 
 JIW ^.1 
 
 E'iii': 'it*.*-.. 
 
 y*.'' ‘."^ r, J5i''."' ■■.-'ii? •' 
 
 
 
73 
 
 on the part of the enemy is in gross violation of the laws of war; 
 secondly, when the condition is such that it would be impossible 
 for an armed force to be encumbered with prisoners without danger 
 to itself. In the first case, the refusal of quarter might be done 
 by reason of reprisals. Thus, during the American Civil War, when 
 the Confederates violated the laws of war by refusing the grant of 
 quarter to the negro C3.ptives who had been enrolled in the Union 
 army, the Union government at once threatened the former that the 
 same treatment would be extended to the Confederate prisoners if 
 their government did not abandon the policy. In the second ca.se the 
 refusal of quarter is justifiable, for when the prisoners are en- 
 tirely under the disposal of a belligerent, he will surely not run 
 a risk of exposing his own soldiers to the danger of massacre. This 
 has been mentioned in the instructions for the government of the 
 armies of the United States. It has been since then practiced by 
 the world. 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 In conclusion, in the first chapter we learned that reprisals 
 are measures of rets.liation adopted by a stcite by imposing pressure 
 on another state for the redress of a wrong done by it or by its 
 subjects; and that reprisals differ from retorsion in the fact that 
 retorsion is retaliation in kind and its application may be confin- 
 ed to political differences while reprisals consist in seizing the 
 goods or trade as a compensation for the injury received and their 
 application may be confined to legal differences. Reprisals may be 
 classified into negative and positive, active and passive reprisals 
 private and public reprisals, and special and general reprsials. 
 
fcvVtuf 
 
 T V. V ■ Tjfi'-.Jsi! 8 ?*ip , 1 :; •'-■> A .'f'l' i \i>T^; 
 
 
 i >1< '{iif . \roai:79':ii'i '&!m 
 
 c.vi& -:£f , «, 
 
 }^3i£ia*!fe*- ; r* :■' ^^ : ' -381 
 
79 
 
 In the second, chapter., we discussed reprisals as survivals 
 from Greek Androlepsia, We also pointed out that reprisals had 
 'oeen practiced with certain restriction during Macedonian supremacy;! 
 that they were regulated "by express treaties or corriTnercial conven- 
 tions when the relation oe tween European states 'oecaine closer. 
 Moreover, in the later period of the Roman Empire the practice was 
 seriously prohibited. During the middle ages and even in the moderr, 
 times to the end of the eighteenth century, states used to grant 
 "Letters of Margue" to their subjects who ha-d been injured abroad, 
 but in the modern period special reprisals have been displaced by 
 general reprisals by which right of reprisals are particularly re- 
 served for the central government alone. 
 
 In Chapter III, we exainined reprisals as a forcible means 
 short of actual war for putting stress upon a nation during contro- 
 versy, We found that reprisals are preferable to war for two 
 reasons; in the first place, the goods seized by a belligerent in 
 tijoe of War are good for prize, while, on the other hand, goods 
 seized by reprisals are restored if peace shauld continue, and in 
 the second place after the reparation of injury, a revocation of the' 
 Letters of Marque or reprisals may restore peace without the delay, ; 
 difficulties and ceremonies of a treaty. Reprisals may produce a 
 psychological effect upon states; for by fear of reprisals, arbit- 
 rary action of a state may be checked down, and reprisals are efiedJt, 
 ive means for a state to prevent another state from passing against 
 her discriminated legislative, administrative and judicial acts. 
 
 In Chapter IV, we observed that rex:>ri3als are admissible in 
 international delinquencies, or in case of self-help under the 
 pressure of absolute necessity, or for the protection of citizens 
 

 »>. 
 
 , -—XT. . -V ■ 'tS* 
 
 ■■i^-^-,1 
 
 . VK'jie = •■ <■ ,. '|!^f^:.J[« ■RV^^«,s4c'Wj6'l o,t;.*(fi V-Wi ' !})• 
 
 :fl ... 
 
 , ' • /•'• '’tMI ‘ 4 r ■ . • V,.3fe’^jl 
 
 
 
 Mif 
 
 ' . ’ d ■' I. ^ '' * •'! • ’ 'f' ’ ^ A' 
 
 ' ’’ ■♦“'.■• ';*'*' . - ■ ^ -■ '■ '' *• '• »' * V ' • :' ':• • 
 
 •..' A f. f n ‘ ^ m k a . f a. I » k k lA. ^ 
 
 «rf»-v...||.- . *«[ -V H .•’:< , '; s ;.>:^ . • ■ . ». . ■■;' .<»•' .• A . at ■. n 
 
 ■ '; ! ?4 'i- i,<.-V '■t.'Vf'‘i>>-,. sIj ,.Xf>% 
 
 
 * ?, 
 
 !i. 
 
 . I . ' • -. .' r^' • M I'f i - k •■ .. ‘ ‘t ■ ^ ,- U A Jrt. > kkir' A-~ k. .t' i 7.^ r . I f 1 i.'- . I £^- u’ ■• .''t 11^ 1:. 
 
 ■■ ^ 
 
 
 ' V 
 
 . .' • - 4^' :/ #•■' f •;■ V : . /'ifl^i^j.' 
 
bO 
 
 atjroad on account of mal-treatment , or in case of a denial of juat- 
 ice or a refusal of rerjaration, or after a contract is violated, or 
 when hostil embargo or hostil tariff has been laid down by a state 
 against another state. Reprisals, however, ought to be preceded by 
 negotiations and stopped when reparation is made, and pressure plac- 
 ed upon the offending state inust not be mere severe than the injury 
 received by the offended state. Present practice and the law of 
 nations, permit privateering or private war by sea only in times of 
 war never in times of peace, and to take private property as secur- 
 ity for the reparation of public wrong is indefensible unless it is 
 done by way of reprisals, and especailly to confiscate a loan pay- 
 able to private subjects by way of reprisal in time of peace is 
 unjustifiable. 
 
 In the last chapter, we saw that if the established usages or 
 laws of war were violated by one belligerent, his adversary has the 
 right to retaliate by the same or similar act for the purpose of 
 preventing furthur excesses; that prisoners of war are liable to 
 punishment inflicted by way of reprisals and that a person who h9.s 
 been seized by way of rex^risals as hostage ought to be treated a,s 
 prisoner of war except that escape may be prevented by closer con- 
 finement, Reprisals inflicted upon a civil population in order to 
 prevent the enemy from carrying a proper and legitimate act of 
 hostilities are unjustifiable, but rev)risals against non-combatants 
 who participate in fighting are justifiable though collective penal- 
 ties for the acts of individuals are to be condemned. The bombard- 
 ment of undefended towns, villages, buildings or places of no 
 military importance is entirely undefensible and if it is done by 
 one belligerent, his adversary ’would be justified in retaliating in 
 
", .KvV ^ V'' 
 
 « •• *^, 
 
 
 
 
 W-''- " ■ V . -;^''' 
 
 !• '. V^- • ‘f, ” irr" 
 
 X>. . -.-...i ; _ ^ . .•*:. fcL.-V\ I V. Z ^ li4 
 
 * -\ ' • ’** ■,.*^<<^'jfc vn ' ^ t WtX'^ fw 
 
 , ,^' ■ ' '"' ’•■*.' . ■ '^ • ' *S?3^ . ’•’ 't;. ' ' '■* / Vi: ' m 
 
 ♦iyVtliJS . ^.J'*.; ,1 . ■' •#.!! ■’. /, >'' i 
 
 -If >?• ■■■ 
 
 ,r . - » . . 1. . 
 
 ^v^i': '•''':, \ J 
 
 -■•■V . . ■ • .'■■••',V„'" -V . -'C:;'-.fc.'V .LJ 
 
 - ,"i<v 't\r *'-w':i^ 
 
 '?i'‘^-?^?.\*-W‘->r > < ;f*' .T^-/- r-: 
 
 ► 'V’ ^ VT'^ ' -' ' ■'■^‘ ■: ' : •■ . 'f f 
 
 .- 4i ii 'Jij^ .. >5t'-V \L. y’ ..^’^ . 4 '.' ' ' , '1 '*1 i^y*' k' '■* I 
 
 ^:tf >u<. .,, •, • •■' ,1 1T‘^ ' i 
 
 ''^\t-K\''^- ''^*^^~ V > \-'l! - , . ‘ Y.- .’ ‘j* " '•'^)i'lMl?Jt\l}'*f\ I . .■/*■• fv 4 j ' V / . ,' 4:' >- 
 
 rff ■■ • ? • 
 
 : ii^^t L-. r-’iv‘-’ "• ■■■ ^Vf.m 
 
 • \ ^ • 'A jir. ' V'-'' 
 
 'A.i 
 
 r. . '/vWpo(«* 
 CV;t :v '■■ '■ :,^'.i'L , ...'ij' /^.KiBMr JdButk* tSiXt -Ajito.V^ ' 
 
 /t/l. .' .■ ', .■'•'.• ^IJL.W*.! 
 
 
6 / 
 
 form of reprisals. Private debts cannot be confiscated in time of 
 War though private property can be, and shares and stocks owned by 
 enemy aliens are not confiscable though the payment of dividends 
 may be suspended. Reprisals are justifiable when they are made 
 against aerial attack, the unlawful use of mines, the extension of 
 contraband to foodstuffs, the destruction of hospital ships, the 
 use of gas and the refusal to grant quarter. 
 
, •'y 
 
 
 
 ’ " T' 
 
 f' 
 
 , .4 
 
 ■''iT 
 
 f* 
 
 :i - 
 
 V . 
 
 .A-i 
 
 r. ri** t«<» 
 
 u. 
 
 
 '■ •,>'. 
 
 " ‘ ' ■ K ■ , . » ■*' 
 
 
 
 •r 
 
 ^1: 
 
 ■f ;€v; -' 
 
 '-' t!. 
 
 
 
 
 . -Silf'' 
 
 i*^CS ' 
 
 ■ • ’ ' 
 
 I/*' O m 
 
 M>- 'fAi. 
 
 ■ -f\ >■'- .M •,. •. ■ ■' ;‘ 
 
 - . ' ' ,' ? . I -, i «4 
 
 
 
 
 ;;jBc 
 
 
 
 
 '^l 
 
 ■ •^ S ,'sN 
 
 
 '» *k- 
 
 * I 
 
 ■Vf.'vl ■■■ 
 
 ; '■■'A-A'P[ . ’ 
 
 
 ■■w. 
 
 «T' 
 
 
 
 ^ ’ :r.<- 
 
 I ■ ■ J *V. ^T. ’ ,. /■ ^<' 
 
 ,f J% 
 
 ■/' .• ■ ' - Ay-if ‘^■j'^‘ 
 
 ■W • '>•.,’•'■■ '■ ■-■J,V;, '■. t '■ , '' 
 
 ■ , ': ■ •■;' '■ 
 
 S;€" V ' ‘ ' ' ‘ 
 
 ■' y ■ »i- .,>, 
 
 
 
 - V :ti 
 
 
 
 nS* 
 
 ’■i 5 
 
 
 
62 / 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Bland, J.O.P., Ge rmany ’ s Vio lation of the Law of War (translation) 
 Davis, G.B., Eletne nts of Internat ional Law , 4th edition 
 Foulke, R.R., A Treat ies on International Law , Volumes I and II 
 Frowde, H,, The Britis h Year Book of International La w , 1920-31, 
 Volume I 
 
 Garner, J.W,, International Law and the W orld W^, Volumes I and II 
 Some Question s of Internation al Law in the European War , 
 (American Journal of International Law, 1915) 
 
 Hall, W.E., Internati o nal Law , 6th edition and 7th edition 
 
 Hal leek, H.W,, Internat ional Law and Law of War 
 
 Hershey, A.S., Essentials of Internati onal Publ i o Law 
 
 Holland, T.E., Laws of War on Land 
 
 Lawrence, T.J., The Principl e of Ilternationa l Law 
 
 Moore, J.B,, Internat ional Law Diges t, Volumes I, IV, and VII 
 
 Naval War Code of 19QQ (u . S . ) 
 
 N av al War College , Internatio nal Law Situation , 1902 (U.S, ) 
 Internati onal La.w Diecus s ion . 1903 (u.S.) 
 
 Interna tiona,! Law Documen t . 1917 ( U . S . ) 
 
 Oppenheim, L,, International Law . Volumes I and II 
 Intern ational Incidents 
 
 The Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public Internation al 
 Law 
 
 Phillimore, E,R., Interna ti onal Law . Volumes III and IV 
 
Phillipson, C., Internati onal Law and the Great War 
 
 I nt e r nat i p, n;^ _ Law and Custom of Ancient Gree ce and Rome 
 Whe at on * s Internationa l Law , 5th edition 
 Pyke, H,R., The Lsi-W of Contra band of War 
 Risley, J.S., The Law of War 
 Robertson^ J.M,, Trade and Tari ff 
 Singer, B,, Internation al Law 
 
 Snow, F. , A Manual at the Naval War Collea-e , Inter nat i on al Law 
 2d edition 
 
 Spaight, J.M., War Riight on L and 
 
 Stowell, E.C,, and Munro, H.F,, Internat ional Cases . War and 
 Neutrality 
 
 Taylor, M,, International Publ i c Law 
 Twiss, S.T,, Law of Natio ns 
 
 Walker, T.A., A History of the Law of Nations . Volume I 
 Westlake, J., Internatio nal Law . Part II 
 Wilson, G.G., Handbook of Internation al Law 
 
 Wilson, G.G., and Tucker, G.F., Internatio nal Law . 7th edition 
 
 W ool se y , T . D . , Internationa l Law 
 
 Wylie , J . F . E , , Smith *8 Inte rn ational Law