Part 9

In the course of my recent studies I have been dealing with the laws and usages of war on land, and I have had to consider the interpretation of Article 23(h) of the Regulations attached to the Convention of 1907 relating to the Laws and Customs of war on land. I find that the interpretation prevailing among all continental and some English and American authorities is contrary to the old English rule, and I would respectfully ask to be informed of the view which His Majesty's Government place upon the article in question.

To give some idea as to how an interpretation of Article 23(h) contrary to the old English rule prevails generally, I will quote a number of French, German, English, and American writers, the works of whom I have at hand in my library, and I will also quote the German Weissbuch concerning the results of the second Hague Conference of 1907.

Bonfils, Manuel de droit international public, 5th ed. by Fauchille, 1908, discusses, on page 651, the doctrine which denies to an enemy subject any persona standi in judicio, but adds:--'... Article 23(h) décide qu'il est interdit de déclarer éteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice, les droits et actions des nationaux de la partie adverse.'

Politis, Professor of International Law in the University of Poitiers (France), in his report to the Institute of International Law, Session of Paris (1910), concerning Effets de la Guerre sur les Obligations Internationales et les Contrats privés, page 18, says:

'Un point hors de doute, c'est, que la guerre ne peut, ni par elle-même ni par la volonté des belligérants, affecter la validité ou l'exécution des contrats antérieurs. Cette règle fait désormais partie du droit positif. L'article 23(h) du nouveau Règlement de la Haye interdit formellement aux belligérants "de déclarer éteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice les droits et actions des nationaux de la partie adverse."

'Cette formule condamne d'anciens usages conservés encore, en partie, dans certains pays. Elle proscrit d'abord tous les moyens--annulation ou confiscation--par lesquels on chercherait à atteindre, dans leur existence, les droits nés avant la guerre. Elle exclut, en second lieu, l'ancienne pratique qui interdisait aux particuliers ennemis l'accès des tribunaux. Elle prohibe, enfin, toutes les mesures législatives ou autres tendant à entraver au cours de la guerre l'exécution ou les effets utiles des obligations privées, notamment le cours des intérêts.

'Il y a là progrès incontestable. Et l'on doit être reconnaissant à la délégation allemande à la 2e Conférence de la paix de l'avoir provoqué.

'L'accueil empressé et unanime qu'a reçu cette heureuse initiative permet d'espérer que de nouveaux progrès pourront être réalisés dans cet ordre d'idées.

'On doit souhaiter que la disposition de l'article 23(h), étrangère à l'hypothèse de l'occupation du territoire ennemi, soit distraite du règlement de 1907 (comme les articles 57 à 60 l'ont été du Règlement de 1899) pour être mieux placée dans une convention nouvelle, où d'autres textes viendraient la compléter.'

Ullmann, Völkerrecht, 2nd ed. 1908, p. 474, says:--

'Auch der Rechtsverkehr wird durch den Ausbruch des Krieges nicht unterbrochen oder gehemmt. Die nach Landesrecht frueher uebliche zeitweise Aufhebung der Klagbarkeit vom Schuldverbindlichkeiten des Staates oder eines Angehörigen gegen Angehörige des Feindes ist durch Artikel 23(h) untersagt.'

Wehberg, Das Beuterecht im Land- und Seekriege, 1909, pp. 5 and 6 says:--

'Article 46 Absatz 2 bestimmt:--"Das Privateigentum darf nicht eingezogen werden." In konsequenter Durchführung dieses Satzes bestimmt der auf deutschen Antrag 1907 hinzugefügte Article 23(h):--"Untersagt ist die Aufhebung oder zeitweilige Ausserkraftsetzung der Rechte und Forderungen von Angehoerigen der Gegenpartei oder der Ausschliessung ihrer Klagbarkeit."'

Whittuck, International Documents, London 1908, Introduction p. xxvii, says--'In Article 23(h) it is prohibited to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the other belligerent which is a development of the principle that the private property of the subjects of a belligerent is not subject to confiscation. This new prohibition if accepted by this country would necessitate some changes in our municipal law.'

Holland, The Laws of War on Land, 1908, says on p. 5 that:--'Article 23(h) seems to require the Signatory Powers to the convention concerned to legislate for the abolition of an enemy's disability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.' (See also Holland, loco citato, p. 44, where he expresses his doubts concerning the interpretation of Article 23(h).)

Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents, Chicago 1908, recognises on page 210 the fact that according to Article 23(h) an alien enemy must now be allowed to sue in the courts of a belligerent, and

Gregory, Professor in the University of Iowa, who reviews Bordwell's work in the American Journal of International Law, Volume 3 (1909), page 788, takes up the same standpoint.

The only author who interprets Article 23(h) in a different way is General Davis, who in his Elements of International Law, 3rd edition 1908, page 578, note 1, says:--

'It is more than probable that this humane and commendable purpose would fail of accomplishment if a military commander conceived it to be within his authority to suspend or nullify their operation, or to regard their application in certain cases as a matter falling within his administrative discretion. Especially is this true where a military officer refuses to receive well grounded complaints, or declines to receive demands for redress, in respect to the acts or conduct of the troops under his command, from persons subject to the jurisdiction of the enemy who find themselves, for the time being, in the territory which he holds in military occupation. To provide against such a contingency it was deemed wise to add an appropriate declaratory clause to the prohibition of Article 23.'

It is very unfortunate that the book of General Davis is not at all known on the Continent, and that therefore none of the continental authors have any knowledge of the fact that a divergent interpretation from their own of Article 23(h) is being preferred by an American author.

It is likewise very unfortunate that neither the English Bluebook on the Second Hague Peace Conference (see Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 4, 1907, page 104) nor the official minutes of the proceedings of the Conference, edited by the Dutch Government, give any such information concerning the construction of Article 23(h) as could assist a jurist in forming an opinion regarding the correct interpretation.

It is, however, of importance to take notice of the fact that Article 23(h) is an addition to Article 23 which was made on the proposition of Germany, and that Germany prefers an interpretation of Article 23(h) which would seem to coincide with the interpretation preferred by all the continental writers. This becomes clearly apparent from the German Weissbuch ueber die Ergebnisse der im Jahre 1907 in Haag abgehaltenen Friedensconferenz, which contains on page 7 the following:--

'Der Artikel 23 hat gleichfalls auf deutschen Antrag zwei wichtige Zusätze erhalten. Durch den ersten wird der Grundsatz der Unverletzlichkeit des Privateigenthumes auch auf dem Gebiete der Forderungsrechte anerkannt. Nach der Gesetzgebung einzelner Staaten soll nämlich der Krieg die Folge haben, dass die Schuldverbindlichkeiten des Staates oder seiner Angehörigen gegen Angehörige des Feindes aufgehoben oder zeitweilig ausser Kraft gesetzt oder wenigstens von der Klagbarkeit ausgeschlossen werden. Solche Vorschriften werden nun durch den Artikel 23 Abs. 1 unter h für unzulässig erklärt.'

However this may be, the details given above show sufficiently that a divergent interpretation of Article 23(h) from the old English rule is prevalent on the Continent, and is to some extent also accepted by English and American Authorities, and it is for this reason that I would ask whether His Majesty's Government consider that the old English rule is no longer in force.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) L. OPPENHEIM.

LETTER FROM THE FOREIGN OFFICE TO THE PRESENT WRITER.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 27, 1911.