^{page 355 note 1} Actes de la Conférence de Bruxelles, 1874.

^{page 355 note 2} Actes, Conférence Internationale de la Paix, La Haye 18 mai—29 juillet 1899 (Actes 1899) III, pp. 111 ff.

^{page 356 note 1} U.S. Military Tribunal V, Hostages Case. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law no. 10 (Trials) U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington. XI 1950, p. 1252.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} In this way no regulation could be found for reprisals.

^{page 356 note 3} Cf. e.g. P. Fauchille, Traité de droit international public II 1921, p. 12; K. Strupp (J. Hatschek), Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts und der Diplomatie I, 1924, p. 763; L. Nurick and R. W. Barrett, Legality of guerilla forces under the laws of war, American Journal of International Law (A.J.I.L.) Vol. 40, 1946, p. 583 note; A. D. McNair, Legal effects of war 1948³, p. 322; C. M. O. van Nispen tot Sevenaer, La prise d'otages, La Haye 1949, pp. 42 and 43; François, J. P. A., Handboek van het Volkenrecht. Zwolle II, 1950, p. 311Google Scholar; R. R. Baxter, So-called “unprivileged belligerency”: spies, guerrillas, and saboteurs, British Year Book of International Law, 1951 (1952), p. 324.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 4} J. L. Kunz, Plus de lois de la guerre? Revue Générale de Droit International Public, 1934, pp. 43 and 44.

^{page 356 note 5} L. Oppenheim (H. Lauterpacht), International Law. London II, 1952⁷, p. 218.

^{page 357 note 1} U.S. Mil. Trib. V, Hostages Case. Trials XI, 1950, p. 1247.

^{page 357 note 2} Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (N.J.) 1949, No. 85.

^{page 358 note 1} G. Sawicki, Chǎtiment ou encouragement? Revue de Droit International (Sottile), 1948, no. 3, pp. 240 ff. Article occasioned by the decision of the U.S. Mil. Trib. V in the Hostages Case.

^{page 358 note 2} Trainin, I. P., Questions of guerilla warfare in the law of war, A.J.I.L., Vol. 40, 1946, pp. 534 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 1} Baxter, R. R., op. cit., p. 324Google Scholar: “Without the humane intervention of international law, war would entail death or enslavement for the combatant or non-combatant overcome by the enemy.”

^{page 359 note 2} Prolegomena § 28 ed. P. C. Molhuysen/Sijthoff, Leyden 1919.

^{page 359 note 3} J. C. C. den Beer Poortugael, Neerland's belang bij de conferentiën te Brussel en St.-Petersburg in 1874–1875, 1875.

^{page 360 note 1} Actes 1899, III, pp. 111 ff.

^{page 361 note 1} M. Hauser, Der Kampf Irregulärer im Kriegsrecht. Thesis Zürich, 1937.

^{page 362 note 1} Meurer, Chr., Die Haager Friedenskonferenz. München II, 1907, p. 103.Google Scholar

^{page 362 note 2} It should be noted that only judicial decisions of national courts are referred to. In the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals and the International Military Court in Tokio attention is only indirectly paid to the legal status of members of resistance movements.

^{page 362 note 3} The Hostages Case derives its name from the fact that the German practice of taking hostages has particularly come to the fore. Trials XI, 1950, pp. 1243 ff.

^{page 363 note 1} See below.

^{page 364 note 1} Oppenheim (Lauterpacht), op. cit., II 1944⁶, p. 179.

^{page 365 note 1} Het Proces Christiansen, Bronnenpublicaties Processen No. 4, 1950, pp. 219, 220; Het Proces Rauter, Bronnenpublicaties Processen No. 5, 1952, pp. 369, 580; Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation) Ed.; English summaries. Also: Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases (A.D.), H. Lauterpacht, Ed. Year 1948, Cases Nos. 121 and 131.

^{page 366 note 1} The Special Court of The Hague accordingly turned down the thesis of the defence that the Netherlands Government in exile had no right to incite the Dutch population to take part in the resistance. Het proces Rauter (Rauter Trial), p. 371.

^{page 366 note 2} Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, selected and prepared by the U.N. War Crimes Commission (L.R.) VIII, 1949, Case No. 45, Trial of Carl Bauer et Al., pp. 15 ff.

^{page 367 note 1} Journal Officiel, June 10, 1944.

^{page 367 note 2} In L.R. XV, 1949, p. 82, note 2, it is explicitly stated that the tribunal “did not indicate whether it relied upon Article 1 or Article 2 of the Hague Regulations”.

^{page 367 note 3} L.R. VIII, 1949, Case No. 44, Trial of Albert Kesselring et Al. See also Laternser, H., Verteidigung deutscher Soldaten 1950, pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar, and Kesselring, A., Soldat bis zum letzten Tag 1953, pp. 433 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 1} Text taken from Laternser, op. cit., English translation in L.R. VIII, 1949, Case No. 44.

^{page 368 note 2} L.R. VIII, 1949, Case No. 44, p. 11.

^{page 369 note 1} Quoted in Trials XI, 1950, pp. 875 and 876.

^{page 369 note 2} A.D. 1946, Case No. 167.

^{page 370 note 1} Trainin, I. P., op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 2} Sawicki, G., op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 3} G. Th. Kempe, Te klein voor dit recht, De Groene Amsterdammer, May 15, 1948.

^{page 370 note 4} See van Nispen tot Sevenaer, C. M. O., op. cit., p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} Telford Taylor, Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials under Control Council Law No. 10, Aug. 15, 1949, p. 207.

^{page 371 note 2} A.D. 1941–1942, Case No. 168.

^{page 372 note 1} Hyde, C. C., Aspects of the Saboteur Gases, A.J.I.L., Vol. 37, 1943.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 2} Baxter, R. R., op. cit., p. 340.Google Scholar

^{page 372 note 3} For the point of view of the Special Court at The Hague in the Rauter Trial see above.

^{page 372 note 4} Vide Rapport sur les travaux de la Conférence préliminaire des Sociétés nationales de la Croix-Rouge pour l'étude des Conventions et de divers problèmes ayant trait à la Croix-Rouge; Genève 26 juillet—3 aoǔt 1946, Série I, No. 3, 1947 and Rapport sur les travaux de la Conférence d'Experts Gouvernementaux pour l'étude des Conventions protégeant les victimes de la guerre; Genève 14–26 avril 1947 (Rapp. Conf. d'Exp. 1947), pp. 109, 110.

^{page 373 note 1} In the cases not regulated by the Hague Regulations the preamble to the Convention itself, previously mentioned above, offers no legal basis for sufficient protection of members of the resistance movements in question. The I.C.R.C. experienced this in World War II in connection with the many steps it took to have partisans who had respected the law of war, given the legal status of prisoners of war. See Rapp. Conf. d'Exp. 1947, pp. 109, 110.

^{page 374 note 1} Rapp. Conf. d'Exp. 1947, p. 112.

^{page 374 note 2} The International Red Cross Conferences, the highest deliberative authority of the International Red Cross, are attended by representatives of the national Red Cross Societies, of the States who are a Party to the Red Cross Conventions, of the I.C.R.C. and of the League of Red Cross Societies. See Diplomatieke Conferentie voor de nieuwe Rode Kruis Verdragen January 1951, issued by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 24, p. 9.

^{page 375 note 1} Actes de la Conférence Diplomatique de Genève de 1949 (Actes 1949) I, pp. 72, 73.

^{page 375 note 2} J. S. Pictet, La Croix-Rouge et les Conventions de Genève (Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International de La Haye 1950 I, tome 76), p. 77.

^{page 375 note 3} Actes 1949, II A, pp. 466, 467.

^{page 377 note 1} Actes 1949, I, pp. 244, 245.

^{page 377 note 2} The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1929, as well as being applicable to all persons who are mentioned in the Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Hague Regulations, applied also to members of the armed forces who were captured during maritime and air operations. The reservation concerning the latter application was the result of the special circumstances of this kind of capture.

^{page 377 note 3} Actes 1949, II B, p. 264.

^{page 377 note 4} Actes 1949, II B, p. 76.

^{page 377 note 5} Actes 1949, II B, p. 124.

^{page 377 note 6} Actes 1949, II B, p. 94.

^{page 378 note 1} Cf. Pictet, J. S., op. cit., 43.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 2} See the Swiss delegate's argument, Actes 1949, II B, p. 331.

Up till now the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 1949 has been ratified by 41 Powers including Belgium, France, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Sovjet Republics; 11 Powers, including Western-Germany and Japan, have acceded to the Convention.

^{page 379 note 1} U.S.A.: Rules of Land Warfare 1940 (FM 27–10), § 13; Great Britain: Manual of Military Law 1929, Article 37 (Edmonds & Oppenheim); France: Manuel de droit international à l'usage des officiers de l'armée de terre (1877).

^{page 379 note 2} Trial of Beck, judgment April 11, 1949 N.J. 1949, No. 437.

^{page 380 note 1} See Röling's note in N. J. 1952, No. 247, in which the two following examples are given. On December 24, 1945, Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara was sentenced by the Military Commission at Kwajelein. The Japanese Admiral had given orders for the prisoners under his charge to be killed, because he had valued the defence of his island more than the lives of his prisoners. In Europe two German soldiers were sentenced because they had killed an American prisoner of war by order of their commander.

^{page 380 note 2} Trial of Hoffmann, unpublished as far as is known.

^{page 380 note 3} Decision of May 30, 1949, unpublished as far as is known.

^{page 381 note 1} Cf. van Nispen tot Sevenaer, C. M. O., op. cit., p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 1} A. J. P. Tammes, The legal system as a source of international law, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht (Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. I) 1953–54, pp. 380, 381.

^{page 382 note 2} Baxter, R. R., op. cit., p. 340.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 1} Baxter, R. R., op. cit., p. 343.Google Scholar