Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:09:50.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Law of Armed Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

L. C. Green
Get access

Extract

In His De Jure Belli ac Paris, Grotius, quoting Cicero, stated that “there is no Middle between War and Peace,” and this sentiment seems to have received general agreement well into the twentieth century. Thus, in Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Lord Macnaghten stated: “I think the learned counsel for the respondent was right in saying that the law recognises a state of peace and a state of war, but that it knows nothing of an intermediate state which is neither one thing nor the other — neither peace nor war.” One might have thought that the English courts would have abandoned this view in the light of their own experience during the Manchukuo incident, for by 1939 in Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v. Bantham S.S. Co. the Court of Appeal was prepared to concede that “war” might exist for some commercial purposes but not in so far as other legal relationships were concerned.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 15 , 1978 , pp. 3 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1625) Inter bellum et pacem nihil est medium — Lib. III, cap. XXI, s. 1 (Eng. tr. 1738, 715; Carnegie tr., 1925, 832).

2 [1902] A.C. 484, 497.

3 [1939] 2 K.B. 544, 558.

4 [1947] 1 K.B. 41. See also, In re Hourigan [1946] N.Z.L.R. 1.

5 “The Legal Meaning of War and the Relation of War to Reprisals,” Grotius Transactions for 1925, 1, 17.

6 “Jus Pacis ac Belli?”, 37 Am. J. Int’l Law 460, 470 (1943).

7 558 Parliamentary Debates (Commons), col. 1645.

8 (1958) 161 F. Supp. 932, 939–41.

9 The Times (London), June 18, 1965.

10 Schneiderman v. Metropolitan Casualty Co. of New York (1961) 220 N.Y.S. 2d 947.

11 For a general discussion on this, see Green, , “Armed Conflict, War and Self-Defence,” 6 Archiv des Völkerrechts 387 (1957).Google Scholar

12 See e.g., Schwarzenberger, , “From the Laws of War to the Law of Armed Conflict,” 21 Current Legal Problems 239 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 U.S. v. Wìrz (1865) H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 23, 40th Cong. 2d. Sess., 1867–68, vol. 8.

14 See e.g., Alabama Arbitration (1872), 1 Moore, Int’l Arb. 653.

15 The Prize Cases (1862) a Black 635.

18 See Moore, I, Digest of Int’l Law, s. 66 Google Scholar; Smith, I, Great Britain and the Law of Nations 302 (1932).Google Scholar

17 See e.g., Padelford, , Int’l Law and Diplomacy in the Spanish Civil Strife (1939).Google Scholar

18 Epigrams of Treason (1618).

19 Persian Letters (1721, tr. Healy, 1964), 174.

20 74 U.N.T.S. 31, 85) 135, 287.

21 See e.g., Green, , “Humanitarian Law and the Man in the Field,” 14 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 96 (1976).Google Scholar

22 The texts, as adopted, were issued by the Conference in June 1977, but do not carry any document number. The official texts have not yet been issued.

23 See e.g., Final Act of the U.N. Conference on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 1969, 8 Int’l Legal Materials 728–35 (1969).

24 Satow, , Guide to Diplomatic Practice 345 (Bland ed., 1957).Google Scholar

25 U.S. Dept. of State, Circular 175 Procedure (Foreign Affairs Manual, vol. II, ch. 700, 1974), Digest of U.S. Practice in Int’l Law 1974, (Rovine ed.) 211.

26 See e.g., re revolutionary governments and governments in exile, Blix, Treaty-Making Power, ch. X, XI (1960).

27 The Times (London), July 23, 1977.

28 G. A. Res. 3314 (XXIX), December 34, 1974, Art. 7.

29 G. Α. Res. 2625 (XXV), October 24, 1970.

30 2 Oppenheim, International Law (1906; unchanged in Lauterpacht ed., 1952), s. 54.

31 Annexed to Hague Convention IV respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 ( Scott, , The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1908), 100,Google Scholar Schindler, and Toman, , The Laws of Armed Conflicts 63, 69 (1973) ).Google Scholar

32 See e.g., Schwarzenberger, , The Frontiers of International Law 32 (1962).Google Scholar

33 See e.g., Lauterpacht, , “Rules of Warfare in an Unlawful War,” in Lipsky, , Law and Politics in the World Community 89, 92–3 (1953).Google Scholar

34 E.g., Arts. 9 (wounded and sick), 70 (relief for civilian population), 73 (refugees and stateless persons), 75 (fundamental guarantees for those in hands of adverse party).

35 See Public Prosecutor v. Koi, [1968] A.C. 829.

36 Mohamed Ali v. Public Prosecutor, [1968] 3 All E.R. 488.

37 Military Prosecutor v. Omar Mahmud Kassem (1969), 42 Int’l Law Rep. 470.

38 See e.g., Mockler, , The Mercenaries (1969), ch. 1–6 Google Scholar; Bayley, , Mercenaries for the Crimea (1977).Google Scholar

39 Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle (1758), Liv. III, ch. 2, s. 13 (Carnegie tr., 1916, 239–40, italics added).

40 One author, at least (Mockler, op. cit., 17), regards its members as being in the same position as the historical mercenary.

41 The Times (London), August 6, 1977.

42 Res. 3068 (XXVIII), November 30, 1973 (adopted by 91–4 [Portugal, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.], with 26 abstentions).

43 Hague Regulations, Art. 22.

44 Art. 35.

45 See e.g., Cheng, , General Principles of Law 105–60 (1953)Google Scholar; Herczegh, , General Principles of International Law and the International Legal Order 30, 47–9 (1969)Google Scholar; Kelsen, , Principles of International Law 447 (Tucker, ed., 1966)Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, , “The Definition and Nature of International Law,” 1 Collected Works 5, 47 (1970)Google Scholar; “Règles générales du droit de la paix,” 62 Hague Recueil 99 (1937), reprinted in I Collected Works 193, 210 (1970); Schwarzenberger, , “The Fundamental Principles of International Law,” 87 Hague Recueil 195, 290–326 (1955)Google Scholar; Tunkin, , Theory of International Law 86, 218–24 (1974).Google Scholar

46 “A shield, pointed below, per saltire blue and white (a shield consisting of a royal-blue square, one of the angles of which forms the point of the shield, and of a royal-blue triangle above the square, the space on either side being taken up by a white triangle),” Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954, Art. 16 (249 U.N.T.S. 240).

47 See e.g., Rosenne, , “The Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun and the Red Shield of David,” 5 Israel Y.B. on Human Rights 9 (1975)Google Scholar; Bugnion, , The Emblem of the Red Cross (1977).Google Scholar

48 “Your Conduct in Combat under the Law of War,” T.R.A.D.O.C. Pam 27–1 (1974), 9.

49 This is a somewhat artificial argument since, in addition to the three emblems, recognized signs now exist for cultural objects, civil defence, and dangerous forces.

50 Schindler and Toman, op. cit. supra note 31, at 139.

51 2 Oppenheim, op. cit. supra note 30 (195a ed.), at 519.

52 Loc. cit., supra note 50.

53 See e.g., Spaight, , Air Power and War Rights 155–64 (1947).Google Scholar

54 Arts. 35(3), 38 resp. (a Oppenheim, op. cit. supra note 30, at 531, n. 5).

55 See e.g., Schindler and Toman, op. cit. supra note 31, at 505,

56 [1949] I.C.J. 15, 21.

57 1969 — not yet in force, 8 Int’l Legal Materials 679 (1969).

58 See Schultz, Civil Defence in International Law (1977, issued under auspices of Danish National Civil Defence and Emergency Planning Directorate).

59 See Hague Regulations, Art. 13, and Geneva Convention III, 1949, Art. 4, giving war correspondents prisoner of war status. See also, note 10 above.

60 The Crisis in the Law of Nations 77 (1947).

61 1954, loc. cit., supra note 46. The definition in the Convention is far wider.

62 See Green, , Superior Orders in National and International Law (1976).Google Scholar

63 See e.g., Green, “The Role of the Legal Adviser in the Armed Forces,” paper presented to the 1977 Roundtable of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo.

64 See e.g., Dinstein, , The Defence of “Obedience to Superior Orders” in International Law (1965),Google Scholar and Green, op. cit. supra note 62.

65 Re Yamashita (1946), 13 Ann. Dig. 255 and 327 U.S. 1. See also, Reel, , The Case of General Yamashita (1949).Google Scholar

66 Conv. I, Art. 50, II, Art. 51, III, Art. 130, IV, Art. 147.

67 Res. 181 (II), November 29, 1947.

68 I — 52, II — 53, III — 132, IV — 149.

69 [1950] I.G.J. 65, 221.

70 The Times (London), April 22, 1977.