1 As Amanda Alexander has rightly pointed out, the term “international humanitarian law” was first used in 1956 by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) at the New Delhi Conference and then propagated by Jean Pictet during the 1960s. As a result, for the lawmaker of the nineteenth century the common term would have been the “laws of war” and for the Spanish-speaking countries: “derecho de guerra” and “derecho de gentes”. See Alexander, Amanda, “A Short History of International Humanitarian Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2015, pp. 116–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 In this article, the terminology used by Arnulf Becker Lorca in his book Mestizo International Law is applied. For Becker Lorca, “semi-peripheral” States were those recognized as sovereign by the nineteenth-century great powers (core States), without, however, fully belonging to the circle. According to Becker Lorca, semi-peripheral States used international law as a strategy and as a counter-hegemonic tool. See Arnulf Becker Lorca, Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. Jochen von Bernstorff points out that the terminology regarding “peripheral, semi-peripheral and core States” is taken from Immanuel Wallerstein's world-systems analysis. See von Bernstorff, Jochen, “Arnulf Becker Lorca. Mestizo International Law: A Global Intellectual History 1842–1933”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, No. 4, November 2016, p. 1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 A recent blog post by Alonso Gurmendi on the Treaty on the Regularisation of War (Treaty of Trujillo) from 1820 between Greater Colombia and the kingdom of Spain, along with the article from 2019 by Marcela Giraldo Muñoz and Jose Serralvo on the novelties of the Colombian case, show that regulating warfare varied across the Latin American space and through the nineteenth century. In 1820 the Treaty of Trujillo was signed. Later in 1863, Colombia incorporated in its Constitution the “Laws of Nations … which shall govern in particular cases of civil war”. Further in time, Mexico regulated the conduct of war by criminalizing violations of the laws of war in 1871. Interestingly enough, these particularities emerged from common ground: popular sovereignty. That said, it might be worth considering that the regulation of warfare in nineteenth-century Latin America constitutes a different strand in the history of the laws of war. On the Treaty on the Regularisation of War between Greater Colombia and the Kingdom of Spain, see Alonso Gurmendi, “Latin Lieber: Uncovering the History of the Treaty on the Regularisation of War”, Opinio Juris, 10 June 2022, available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2022/06/10/latin-lieber-uncovering-the-history-of-the-treaty-on-the-regularisation-of-war/ (all internet references were accessed in July 2022); also see Marcela Giraldo Muñoz and Jose Serralvo, “International Humanitarian Law in Colombia: Going a Step Beyond”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 101, No. 912, 2019.

4 See Segesser, Daniel Marc, “‘Unlawful Warfare is Uncivilised’: The International Debate on the Punishment of War Crimes, 1872–1918”, European Review of History, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Eyal Benvenisti and Doreen Lustig, “Monopolizing War: Codifying the Laws of War to Reassert Governmental Authority, 1856–1874”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2020. As for the failure of banning war completely, see Samuel Moyn, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2021.

5 A very interesting work written by historian James E. Sanders explains how republican Latin Americans of the nineteenth century saw themselves as agents of modernity, since they were not monarchies; they were secular and universalist. A valuable insight of the work is that there were also sectors in Europe and the USA that saw republicanism in Latin America as the future of Europe. See Sanders, James E., The Vanguard of the Atlantic World. Creating Modernity, Nation and Democracy in Nineteenth-Century Latin America, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 2014Google Scholar.

6 For a systemized classification of the traditions in the laws of war, see Nabulsi, Karma, Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Constitución Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1857, Art. 31, available at: http://www.ordenjuridico.gob.mx/Constitucion/1857.pdf.

8 The author Karma Nabulsi illustrates with many examples how figures like Francis Lieber were convinced of their “white European superiority”. An example is a Francis Lieber quote referring to the Mexicans as “degenerates”; see K. Nabulsi, above note 6, p. 165. Regarding the representation of “barbarism” in the visual arts, Rhonda Adato gives an account of how the execution of Maximilian of Habsburg was portrayed by royalist French photographers. She also gives a good example of how Mexicans were portrayed by these photographers, like one photograph of Desirée Charnay from 1880, presenting two Mayan Indians in front of a bare wall, with nothing but their underclothing. See Adato, Rhonda R., “Modernity, Photography, and History Painting in Manet's Execution of Maximilian”, Berkeley Undergraduate Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 In this specific case, the subjective appreciation of an armed conflict to which Kolb refers could not be more illustrative. For Americans, the conflict is called the “Mexican–American war”, while for the Mexicans it is called the “American Intervention” (intervención norteamericana). See Robert Kolb, “The Main Epochs of Modern International Humanitarian Law since 1864 and their Related Dominant Legal Constructions”, in Kjetil Mujezinović Larsen, Camilla Guldahl Cooper and Gro Nystuen (eds), Searching for a “Principle of Humanity” in International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 31–4.

10 John Fabian Witt has already explained in detail how the Mexican–American war, and especially the experience the Americans had with Mexican guerrilla warfare, shaped the contents of General Orders No. 100 (the Lieber Code). See John Fabian Witt, The Laws of War in American History – Lincoln's Code, Free Press, New York, 2012, pp. 118–30.

11 For a contemporary account on French “anti-guerrilla” tactics in Mexico, see E. Lefévre, Documentos oficiales recogidos en la secretaría privada de Maximiliano: Vol. 1, Historia de la intervención francesa en Méjico, Brussels and London, 1869, pp. 419–33.

12 Geoffrey Best, Humanity in Warfare: Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1980, pp. 128–215 and 141–3.

13 Obregón, Liliana, “Between Civilisation and Barbarism: Creole Interventions in International Law”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2006, pp. 816–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 See Guerra, Elisa Speckman, “Los jueces, el honor y la muerte. Un análisis de la justicia (ciudad de México, 1871–1931)”, Historia Mexicana, Vol. 55, No. 4, 2006Google Scholar.

15 From the letters, it can be inferred that it was central to rebuke the allegations of not being civilized as these worked as a basis in the reparations claims made by foreign nationals against the government of Mexico. See Manifiesto a la Nación del Presidente Benito Juárez, 18 December 1861, in D. José M. Vigil, México á tráves de los siglos: Vol. V, La Reforma, Ballescá y Compañía, Mexico; Espasa y Compañía, Barcelona, 1882, pp. 490–1.

16 “Una vez rotas las hostilidades, todos los extranjeros pacíficos residentes en el país quedarán bajo el amparo y protección de las leyes, y el gobierno excita á los mexicanos á que dispensen á todos ellos, y aun á los mismos franceses, la hospitalidad, y consideraciones que siempre encontraron en México, seguros de que la autoridad obrará con energía contra los que á esas consideraciones correspondan con deslealtad, ayudando al invasor. En la guerra se observarán las reglas del derecho de gentes por el ejército y por las autoridades de la República.” See Manifiesto del Presidente Benito Juárez, 12 April 1862, in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15, pp. 523–4.

17 “Ignacio de Mora y Villamil, general en jefe del Ejército del Norte, le dice a Zachary Taylor, general del Ejército Norteamericano que responda si quiere hacer guerra con arreglo al derecho de gentes o conforme lo hacen lo salvajes”, in Archivo digital de documentos sobre la guerra de Texas, 1835 y la guerra Mexico-Estados Unidos, 1846-1848, Disc 1, 001-150, Item 1. University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Special Collections and Archives Digital Collections, pp. 128–31, available at: https://archives.lib.utrgv.edu/repositories/6/archival_objects/14234.

18 Ibid. The notice made by the Mexican general to his counterpart is pretty much in line with what Andres Bello argued in his treaty in 1844. Bello suggested that if an “enemy general” commits “acts of atrocity”, he shall be notified that if he does not abide with the “law of nations”, his army would be treated the same way. See Andrés Bello, Principios de Derechos de gentes, Nueva edición revista y corregida, Librería de la Señora viuda de Calleja e hijos, Madrid and Lima, 1844, p. 189.

19 Stephen A. Carney, The U.S. Army Campaigns of the Mexican War, U.S. Army Center of Military History, undated, p. 40. Regarding excesses by the regular army, the “Interventions Museum” (Museo de las Intervenciones) in Mexico City has a very interesting undated lithography on display in the room dedicated to the American Intervention, with the title: “The whipping given by the Americans” (Los azotes dados por los Americanos). It depicts an American soldier whipping a man hung in a cross surrounded by a battalion of American soldiers in a big public square.

20 Winfield Scott, Cuartel General del Egercito, Ordenes generales numero 20, Tampico, Mexico, 19 de febrero 1847, Imprenta de la calle de la Carniceria, Tampico, 1847.

21 According to Witt non-regular Mexican armies were problematic; see J. F. Witt, above note 10, p. 119. Also see ibid., Art. 9. The problematic nature of guerrilla forces is understandable as they had not been professionally trained and their actions were unforeseeable. However, as Karma Nabulsi argues, disqualifying the involvement of civilians in warfare particularly when fighting against an occupation or invasion has been a constant in what she calls the “martial” and “Grotian” traditions of war. See K. Nabulsi, above note 6, pp. 80–176.

22 See María del Pilar Iracheta Cenecorta, ‟Guerrillas durante la intervención norteamericana, 1846–1848”, Boletín del Archivo General del Estado de México, No. 3, 1979, pp. 22–3; Miguel Ángel González-Quiroga and César Morado Macías, Nuevo León ocupado. Aspectos de la guerra México-Estados Unidos, Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León-Fondo Editorial, Monterrey, 2006, pp. 5–11.

23 Ulyses Grant who was a US president (1869–1877), and who fought in the Mexican–American war and the American civil war, recalled in his memoires: “My pity was aroused by the sight of the Mexican garrison of Monterey marching out of town as prisoners, and no doubt the same feeling was experienced by most of our army who witnessed it. Many of the prisoners were cavalry, armed with lances, and mounted on miserable little half-starved horses that did not look as if they could carry their riders out of town. The men looked in but little better condition. I thought how little interest the men before me had in the results of the war, and how little knowledge they had of ‘what it was all about.’” See Ulyses S. Grant, Personal Memoires of U. S. Grant, Vol. I, Charles L. Webster & Company, New York, 1885, pp. 117–18.

24 W. Scott, above note 20, Art. 9.

25 On the immunity that acts of war enjoyed since they were committed as acts of State, see Oona A. Hathaway, Paul Strauch, Beatrice Walton and Zoe Weinberg, “What is a War Crime?”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 44, 2019, pp. 6–13.

26 On the meanings of the term “civilization”, see Gustavo Gozzi, Rights and Civilizations: A History and Philosophy of International Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019, pp. 123–5.

27 Note no. 7729, written by Mariscal Comandante Bazaine, 11 October 1865, in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15, p. 728. David Pendas also illustrates the case of the Europeans justifying themselves for behaving like barbarians in the colonies. See Pendas, David O., “‘The Magical Scent of the Savage’: Colonial Violence, the Crisis of Civilization, and the Origins of the Legalist Paradigm of War”, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2007, pp. 45–50Google Scholar.

28 See Bazaine, ibid. The decree Bazaine referred to was issued by Maximilian of Habsburg in 1865. See “Ley para castigar las bandas armadas y guerrilleros”, 3 de octubre de 1865, Boletín de leyes del Imperio Mexicano, Primera parte, tomo segundo, Imprenta de Andrade y Escalante, México, 1866.

29 See Foster, John W., “Maximilian and His Mexican Empire”, Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Vol. 14, 1911, pp. 198–203Google Scholar. For a critical account of the trial, see Konrad Ratz, Das Militärgerichtsverfahren gegen Maximilian von Mexiko, Verlag Enzenhofer, Hardegg, 1985. Also see Constitución Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 1857, above note 7, Arts 20–4.

30 Ley para castigar los delitos contra la Nación, el orden, la paz pública y las garantías individuales, 25 January 1862, published in edict of 6 February 1862, available at: https://www.memoriapoliticademexico.org/Textos/4IntFrancesa/1862CDN.html.

31 Interestingly enough, Maximilian's defence argued that Marshall Bazaine had actually drafted the law and, therefore, the defendant should be excused of responsibility: “Las exigencias especiales de su posición le impusieron a veces, bien a su pesar, la triste necesidad de hacer algunas concesiones a la autoridad francesa, y una de ellas fue la expedición de la ley de 3 de octubre de 1865, en la que hay algunos artículos redactados por el mismo mariscal Bazaine, y la que se dictó en virtud de informes ministrados por los mismos franceses, de que el señor Juárez había abandonado el país. Pero una vez admitida la buena fe, y esta se ha demostrado antes, con que el señor archiduque se creía legítimamente soberano de México, no podía imputársele a crimen que tomase aquellas providencias dirigidas a defender su gobierno contra los adversarios políticos que lo combatían con las armas.” See the original document in Jorge Mario Magallón Ibarra, Proceso y Ejecución vs. Fernando Maximiliano de Habsburgo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, 2005, p. 552.

32 “Alegato no. 26 del Fiscal Manuel Aspiroz: Con dicho ejército continuó durante el tiempo de su dominación, la guerra que los franceses habían comenzado contra la República. Esta guerra continuó haciéndose de la misma manera que había comenzado, sin las formalidades del derecho que observan las naciones civilizadas, siendo de considerarse que Maximiliano era el agresor”, in J. M. M. Ibarra, above note 31, p. 564.

33 “Alegato no. 63: Finalmente, la consideración de prisioneros de guerra que podrían alegar los procesados, para que no les sea aplicable la pena capital, tiene por excepción el caso de que los prisioneros sean responsables de alguna falta grave contra el derecho de guerra o de algún delito especial que merezca tal pena, como ya en otra parte lo hemos visto (Wattel, Derecho de gentes, libro 3o., capítulo 8, párrafos 141, 142 y 143)”, in J. M. M. Ibarra, above note 31, p. 577.

34 See E. Lefévre, above note 11, p. 428.

35 According to Robert Buffington, Martínez de Castro's criminological approach that endeavoured to erase distinctions between class or race through law was very liberal. However, Buffington explains that the egalitarian paradigm of crime and punishment was followed by a new generation of lawyers under Porfirio Díaz's rule who were in favour of a “biologist” approach. See Robert M. Buffington, Criminal and Citizen in Modern Mexico, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2000, pp. 31–3. Timo Schaefer also remarks on the turn that liberalism took in Mexico during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. See Timo H. Schaefer, Liberalism as Utopia: The Rise and Fall of Legal Rule in Post-Colonial Mexico, 1820–1900, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017, pp. 1–7.

36 See Ley para castigar los delitos contra la nación, above note 30.

37 For the account of Latin Americans interacting in different international law congresses since 1826, see Jorge L. Esquirol, “Latin America”, in Bardo Fassbender, Anne Peters, Simone Peter and Daniel Högger (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, pp. 560–2.

38 The following works give full detail of this account: Daniel Marc Segesser, Recht statt Rache oder Rache durch Recht?, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Leiden, the Netherlands, 2010; Kirstin von Lingen, “Crimes against Humanity”: Eine Ideengeschichte der Zivilisierung von Kriegsgewalt 1864–1945, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, Leiden, the Netherlands, 2018; and Pablo Kalmanovitz, The Laws of War in International Thought, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021.

39 See Antonio Martínez de Castro, “Explanatory Memorandum”, in Código Penal para el Distrito Federal y Territorio de la Baja California sobre delitos del fueron común y para toda la República Mexicana sobre delitos contra la federación, Librería de Donato Miramontes, Chihuahua, 1883, pp. 7–8.

40 See A. Martínez de Castro, ibid., p. 70. As for newly independent Latin-American nations that were in the odd position of defending themselves from European powers and, at the same time, aspiring to be like them, see Liliana Obregón, “Regionalism Constructed Short History of ‘Latin American International Law’”, European Society of International Law (ESIL) Conference Paper Series, No. 5/2012, 2012; and A. Becker Lorca, above note 2.

41 See A. Martínez de Castro, above note 39, pp. 8–9.

42 A. Martínez de Castro, above note 39, pp. 67–8.

43 “Delitos contra el Derecho de gentes. De los veintitantos códigos y proyectos que hemos examinado, solo el Código español y el proyecto de Portugal hablan de unos cuantos delitos contra el derecho de gentes; y á nosotros nos ha parecido que no estaría de mas hacer otro tanto, fijando los preceptos mas seguros y que están admitidos como incontestables, sobre la piratería, sobre la violación de los archivos, de la correspondencia y de cualquiera otra inmunidad diplomática real ó personal de un soberano extranjero ó de los representantes de otra nación, de un parlamentario ó de la que da un salvoconducto; sobre el tráfico de esclavos; y sobre la violación de los deberes de humanidad en prisioneros, rehenes, heridos ú hospitales. La comisión se ocupó de estos delitos, por ser muy común su perpetración, y no hizo lo mismo respecto de otros, por ser menos frecuentes, y porque para tratar de todos sería necesario formar un código aparte.” See A. Martínez de Castro, above note 39, p. 67–8.

44 See Robert Kolb, “The Protection of the Individual in Times of War and Peace”, in B. Fassbender, A. Peters, S. Peter and D. Högger (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012, p. 324.

45 See G. Best, above note 12, pp. 179–85. Benvenisti and Lustig also argue that civilians were kept away from the regulation of war as States pretended to exclude civilian armies. See E. Benvenisti and D. Lustig, above note 4, pp. 28–9.

46 See R. Kolb, above note 9, p. 39; G. Best, above note 12, pp. 154–7.

47 See General Orders No. 100: The Lieber Code instructions for the government of armies of the USA in the field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863, Art. 59 (the Lieber Code). See also Patryk I. Labuda, “The Lieber Code, Retaliation and the Origins of International Criminal Law”, in Morten Bergsmo et al. (eds), Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 3, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, Brussels, 2015, pp. 305–6.

48 See P. Kalmanovitz, above note 38, p. 139.

49 See, in this regard, the interesting account of Jose María Roa Bárcena about the conclusion of hostilities during the Mexican–American war. See José María Roa Bárcena, Recuerdos de la invasión norte-americana, 1846–1848: por un joven de entonces, Librería madrileña de Juan Buxó, Mexico, 1883, pp. 611–15.

50 This right was also given by the law of 1862, as Mexican citizens were given the right to file an accusation before military authorities if, for example, they were held hostage or their property was seized. See Ley para castigar los delitos contra la nación, above note 30, Art. 5.

51 D. M. Segesser, above note 38, pp. 50–1.

52 Jessica Laird and John Fabian Witt, “Inventing the War Crime: An Internal Theory”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 59, No. 3, 2019, pp. 44–5.

53 Article 91 – El Derecho de Gentes hace parte de la legislación nacional. Sus disposiciones regirán especialmente en los casos de guerra civil. En consecuencia, puede ponerse término a ésta por medio de tratados entre beligerantes, quienes deberán respetar las prácticas humanitarias de las naciones cristianas y civilizadas. Also see Iván Daniel Otero, “La aplicación del artículo 91 de la Constitución de Rionegro. Una herramienta constitucional para la solución de los conflictos armados”, Revista Derecho del Estado, No. 4, Bogota, 2015, available at: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0122-98932015000100010&lng=en&nrm=iso.

54 A. Martínez de Castro, above note 39, pp. 66–7.

55 Regarding injuries done by rebels to foreign nationals, see Greenman, Kathryn, “Aliens in Latin America: Intervention, Arbitration and State Responsibility for Rebels”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 See J. L. Esquirol, above note 37, pp. 554–7.

57 For an extensive review on the respondeat superior principle as a defence in international criminal law, see Lippman, Matthew, “Conundrums of Armed Conflict: Criminal Defenses to Violations of the Humanitarian Law of War”, Penn State Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 4–58Google Scholar.

58 Ibid., p. 15.

59 R. Kolb, above note 9, p. 29.

60 A. Martínez de Castro, above note 39, p. 13.

61 “… En algunos códigos se pone la obediencia pasiva como circunstancia excluyente, sin distinción ninguna; pero esto es considerar al agente como un verdadero autómata y dar ocasión á muchos crímenes; porque sabiendo que el que obedece es irresponsable, se prestarían los inferiores a cometer los mayores atentados, como viles instrumentos de sus jefes, seguros de la impunidad.” See A. Martínez de Castro, above note 39, pp. 13–14. In contrast, Lassa Oppenheim explains in the 1912 edition of his treaty that armed forces that commit violations of the rules of warfare cannot be punished as war criminals by the enemy. However, if the violation had been ordered by the commandeer, then he could be punished as a war criminal. See L. Oppenheim, “Violations of Rules Regarding Warfare”, in Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. II: War and Neutrality, 2nd ed., Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcutta, 1912, § 253.

62 Avner W. Less, Schuldig. Das Urteil gegen Adolf Eichmann, Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt, 1987, paras 216 and 228.

63 See IMT, France et al. v. Göring et al., Judgment and Sentence, 1 October 1946, 22 IMT 411, p. 466.

64 D. M. Segesser, above note 38, pp. 408–16; D. O. Pendas, above note 27, pp. 35–7 and 40–2; von Lingen, Kerstin, “Legal Flows: Contributions of Exiled Lawyers to the Concept of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’ During the Second World War”, Modern Intellectual History, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2020, pp. 519–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also United Nations War Crimes Commission, 1948 History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Laws of War, London, 1948, pp. 39–40, available at: http://www.unwcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/UNWCC-history.pdf.

65 See L. Oppenheim, “Criminal Jurisdiction of Foreigners in Foreign States”, in Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. I: Peace, 2nd ed., Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcutta, 1912, § 147, pp. 204–5. Albéric Rolin also referred to the Cutting case in 1888 and he noted that the Criminal Code of Italy resembled the scope of Article 186 of the MCC; however, it was a mitigated version since the Italian disposition was only applicable for serious crimes (crimes et délits graves). See M. Albéric Rolin, “L'Affaire Cutting. Conflit entre les États-Unis de L'Amerique Du Nord et le Mexique en 1886”, Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparée, Vol. XX, 1888, available at: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5748370z/f564.item.

66 Given the experience Mexico had with allegations made by Spain and France of not complying with the law of nations, it can be inferred that it was a priority to demonstrate the contrary. The following statement made by President Juárez in the year 1861 supports this hypothesis: “… Informes exagerados y siniestros de los enemigos de México, nos han presentado al mundo como incultos y degradados. Defendámonos de la guerra á que se nos provoca, observando estrictamente las leyes y usos establecidos en beneficio de la humanidad. Que el enemigo indefenso, á quien hemos dado generosa hospitalidad, viva tranquilo y seguro bajo la protección de nuestras leyes. Así rechazaremos las calumnias de nuestros enemigos, y probaremos que somos dignos de la libertad é independencia que nos legaron nuestros padres.” Manifiesto a la Nación del Presidente Benito Juárez, 18 December 1861, in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15, pp. 490–1.

67 See Kathryn Greenman, “The History and Legacy of State Responsibility for Rebels, 1839–1930”, PhD Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam Center for International Law, 2019, pp. 43–54.

68 A collection of all these documents and correspondence can be found in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15. On President Juárez also publicly invoking “humanity”, see above note 66.

69 Comunicación del Ministerio de Guerra y Marina, 6 December 1856, in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15, pp. 203–4.

70 Letter from General Zaragosa to the French Marshall Jurien, 18 April 1862, in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15, p. 526.

71 A. Bello, above note 18. On Andrés Bello's work as part of a “creole legal consciousness”, see L. Obregón, above note 40, pp. 7–8. Also see Liliana Obregón, “Construyendo la región americana: Andrés Bello y el derecho internacional”, in Beatriz González-Stephan and Juan Poblete (eds), Andrés Bello y los estudios latinoamericanos, Serie Criticas, Universidad de Pittsburgh: Instituto Internacional, de Literatura Iberoamericana, Pittsburgh, PA, 2009.

72 A. Bello, above note 18, p. 183.

73 Ibid., p. 87.

74 Ibid., p. 192.

75 Ibid., p. 88.

76 In the sense of “humanity” as a categorical imperative or as a moral notion, see Kerstin von Lingen, “Fulfilling the Martens Clause: Debating ‘Crimes against Humanity’, 1899–1945”, in Fabian Klose and Mirjam Thulin (eds), Humanity – a History of European Concepts in Practice, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2015. As for obeying the law as intrinsic to civilized nations, see Martti Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 101–10.

77 A. Becker Lorca, above note 2.

78 Fabian Klose and Mirjam Thulin, “Introduction: European Concepts and Practices of Humanity in Historical Perspective”, in F. Klose and M. Thulin, above note 76, pp. 17–18. Also see Kerstin von Lingen, “Menschenrechte strafrechtlich schützen – eine historische Genese des Konzepts von ‘Crimes against Humanity’”, in Menschenrechte – für wen?, Studium Generale, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 2019, p. 55.

79 R. Kolb, above note 9, p. 35. On the standard of civilization in the context of Latin American countries, see A. Becker Lorca, above note 2, pp. 62–7.

80 A good account of how liberal ideas became utopian in nineteenth-century Mexico can be found in T. H. Schaefer, above note 35.

81 Under the 1857 Mexican Constitution, rights are granted to all individuals and not only to Mexicans. For example, Articles 4 and 10 of the Constitution employ the phrase “every man”.

82 See G. Best, above note 12, p. 168.

83 Geoffrey Best gives some examples of reprisals between 1808 and 1871; see G. Best, above note 12, p. 168. Also on the matter of retaliation as a collective punishment, see the account of J. Laird and J. F. Witt, above note 52, pp. 13–16.

84 Segesser argues that the reprisals suffered by the French population during the Franco-Prussian war motivated French jurists to seek the criminal prosecution of such acts. See D. M. Segesser, above note 38, pp. 87–8.

85 See Rotem Giladi, “A Different Sense of Humanity: Occupation in Francis Lieber's Code”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 94, No. 885, 2012, p. 108.

86 See G. Best, above note 12, p. 348, note 77. On how reprisals and retaliation were discussed in the US context, see J. F. Witt, above note 10, pp. 128–32.

87 See P. I. Labuda, above note 47, p. 307.

88 On the subjective trigger for the applicability of the law of war, see R. Kolb, above note 9, pp. 31–4.

89 On the discussions of how to limit the principle of necessity, see G. Best, above note 12, pp. 172–9.

90 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field of 22 August 1864, entered into force 22 June 1865 (Geneva Convention 1864), Art. 8.

91 See Steinberg, Ronen, “Transitional Justice in the Age of the French Revolution”, International Journal of Transitional Justice, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2013, p. 270CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 In comparison, according to Timo Schaefer, in Europe the trajectory of the French Revolution was interrupted and, until the First World War, dominated aristocratic interests and mentalities. See T. H. Schaefer, above note 35, pp. 1–3.

93 G. Best, above note 12, pp. 131–67; D. M. Segesser, above note 38, p. 25.

94 See P. Kalmanovitz, above note 38, pp. 127–51.

95 See R. Kolb, above note 9, pp. 28–9.

96 See M. Koskenniemi, above note 76; D. M. Segesser, above note 38; G. Best, above note 12.

97 See T. H. Schaefer, above note 35.

98 See Daniel Marc Segesser, “Forgotten, but Nevertheless Relevant! Gustave Moynier's Attempts to Punish Violations of the Laws of War 1870–1916”, in Mats Deland, Mark Klamberg and Pål Wrange (eds), International Humanitarian Law and Justice: Historical and Sociological Perspectives, 1st ed., Routledge, London, 2018.

99 G. Best, above note 12, pp. 145–6.

100 J. F. Witt, above note 10, pp. 340–5.

101 R. Kolb, above note 9, pp. 25–9.

102 As an overall argument, see Richard Baxter, “The First Modern Codification of the Law of War: Francis Lieber and General Orders No. 100”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 3, No. 25, 1963.

103 See Lieber Code, Art. 4.

104 On the early prevention and punishment of war crimes, see Hugh H. L. Bellot, “War Crimes: Their Prevention and Punishment”, Problems of the War, Vol. 2, 1916.

105 See The Laws of War on Land, manual published by the Institute of International Law (Oxford Manual), adopted by the Institute of International Law at Oxford, 9 September 1880.

106 See Oxford Manual, ibid., Arts 84–6.

107 A. Bello, above note 18, pp. VIII and XIX.

108 For a detailed account of the history and development of IHL in Colombia, see Alejandro Valencia, La humanización de la guerra: Derecho internacional humanitario y conflicto armado en Colombia, Ediciones Uniandes y Tercer Mundo Editores, Bogotá, 1992, pp. 126–38, 144–6 and 168–82.

109 See Código militar expedido por el Congreso de los Estados Unidos de Colombia, Imprenta a cargo de T. Uribe Zapata, Bogotá, 1881, Arts 1035–271. Even the Geneva Convention of 1864 is inserted in Article 1134.

110 As in the case of the jurisdictional obstacles posed by the US Constitution. For an in-depth account, see J. Laird and J. F. Witt, above note 52.

111 R. Kolb, above note 9, pp. 31–4.

112 See R. Giladi, above note 85; K. Nabulsi, above note 6, pp. 158–63.

113 Also, Article 3 of the Lieber Code, stipulates that “… Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule…”. However, Article 96 allows in the case of a citizen that commits treason against his country to be dealt with according to the law of the traitor.

114 Providing jurisdiction for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes committed by the State nationals or by armed forces in their territory is now considered an obligation under customary law. See ICRC, “Practice Relating to Rule 158. Prosecution of War Crimes, Customary IHL Database”, available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule158.

115 In practice, Mexican authorities have resorted to Article 186 of the MCC in 1886 and 1940 against American nationals and the USA has refused to recognize the extraterritorial principle. However, the charges have not been for violations of the laws of war. For the stance of the US Department of State, see Blakesley, Christopher L., “United States Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crime”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 73, 1982, pp. 1116–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, note 16.

116 Lieber Code, Arts 21–30.

117 See J. Laird and J. F. Witt, above note 52, p. 48; J. F. Witt, above note 10, pp. 341–3.

118 Lieber Code, Art. 37 (rigorously punished); Art. 44 (severe punishment); Art. 86 (highly punishable).

119 Lieber Code, Arts 12 and 13.

120 The aspect of the “draconian punishment” is also remarked by K. von Lingen, above note 38, pp. 68–9.

121 Some articles of the Lieber Code that punish with the death penalty: 44, 66, 71, 83, 89–92, 95 and 97.

122 Lieber Code, Art. 77.

123 See "Ley para castigar las bandas armadas y guerrilleros", above note 28, Arts 1–2. This law also led to the execution of prominent leaders of the time as a biographical book dedicated to the “Martyrs of Uruapan” recalls. See Melchor Ocampo Manzo, Homenaje de Admiración y Testimonio de Respeto del Gobernador del Estado a los Mártires de Uruapan, Imprenta de la Escuela de Artes, Morelia, 1893, available at: http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080013187/1080013187_01.pdf.

124 Lieber Code, Arts 12 and 13.

125 Lieber Code, Arts 149–51.

126 Lieber Code, Art. 85.

127 Lieber Code, Art. 51

128 Lieber Code, Arts 92 and 95.

129 Lieber Code, Art. 155. On this matter, see R. Giladi, above note 85, pp. 110–12.

130 MCC, Arts 1071–5 and 1080.

131 Especially the correlation of military rank and punishment. For example, a Mexican general that aided a foreign invader would be punished with the death penalty, whereas land soldiers would be punished with two years’ imprisonment. See MCC, Art. 1080.

132 See, for example, Article 1093 of the MCC, under which foreign nationals residing in Mexico who aided the invader enjoyed a reduction of the penalty.

133 See Articles 1071–80 of the MCC. Also see the account of Geoffrey Best, regarding the discussions around the obligations of the occupied, which can be summarized as the occupier's position that absolute docility and positive assistance (as in the Lieber Code) was expected from the occupied populations. See G. Best, above note 12, pp. 180–5.

134 Notwithstanding their disappointment produced by the French Intervention. See Nicole Giron, “Ignacio A. Altamirano y la Revolución Francesa: una recuperación liberal”, in S. Alberro, A. Chávez and E. Trabulse (eds), La revolución francesa en México, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City, 1992, pp. 201–14.

135 Eliana Augusti, “Peace by Code. Milestones and Crossroads in the Codification of International Law”, in Thomas Hippler and Miloš Vec (eds), The Codification of International Law in Paradoxes of Peace in Nineteenth Century Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, pp. 37–61.

136 See D. M. Segesser, above note 38; K. von Lingen, above note 38. This is also linked to the development of weaponry and the damage inflicted. On the legalist paradigm, see D. O. Pendas, above note 27.

137 See G. Gozzi, above note 26, pp. 123–5.

138 In this regard, the Mexican case is a good example of the appropriation of classic legal thought by the non-Western States in order to obtain recognition, as A. Becker Lorca argues, above note 2, pp. 65–72.

139 In a letter from 1862, French commissioners argued that the murdering of French soldiers by their Mexican counterparts proved that the Mexican government was unwilling and unable to follow obligations common to “civilized nations”. See Nota de abril de 1862 por parte los comisionarios francéses, in D. J. M. Vigil, above note 15, pp. 525–6.

140 D. O. Pendas, above note 27, p. 30.

141 See Miloš Vec, “From the Congress of Vienna to the Paris Peace Treaties of 1919”, in B. Fassbender, A. Peters, S. Peter and D. Högger (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.

142 It might be worth noting that the MCC of 1871 was translated to German and published in 1894 as part of a “foreign criminal codes” collection edited by the journal Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft. See Das Mexikanische Strafgesetzbuch : vom 7. Dezember 1871, gültig für den Bundesdistrikt und das Territorium Niederkalifornien bezüglich der gemeinen Vergehen und für die ganze Republik bezüglich der Vergehen gegen den Bund, Guttentag Verlag, Berlin, 1894.

143 See van Dijk, Boyd, Preparing for War: The Making of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2022, pp. 99–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Alexander, Amanda, “International Humanitarian Law, Postcolonialism and the 1977 Geneva Protocol I”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2016Google Scholar.

144 See Código Penal Federal, Nuevo Código Publicado en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 14 de agosto de 1931, available at: http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf_mov/Codigo_Penal_Federal.pdf.