The property of religious, charitable and educational institutions, and of art and science, even when state property, are assimilated to private property, and all seizure of, and destruction or in tentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monu ments, works of art or science is prohibited (Art. 56). As these rules were insufficient, new rules known as the Bellot rules, were adopted by the Warsaw conference of the International Law Association in 1928 and it is expected that they will form the basis of an interstate convention. A special Hague convention adopted at the Conference of i9o7 now provides that hostilities "must not commence without previous and explicit warning in the form of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Limitation of Belligerent Rights.—Another fundamental principle which fully corresponds to the modern tendencies of the civilised world is that contained in article 2 2 of The Hague Con vention No. IV., which expressly lays down that the "right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not un limited." It must not be used for the purpose of inflicting un necessary injuries or for the wanton devastation and spoliation of enemy property. More especially, the war must not be waged against the peaceful inhabitants of the enemy territory. This distinction between combatants and non-combatants on which international law has been based since the beginning of the nine teenth century, was repeatedly infringed by Germany and her Allies during the Great War of 1914-18. The sanctity of treaties, the rights of individual lives, family honour and private property were deliberately and persistently violated by the Central Powers.
Even the lives and property of neutrals were not spared in this conflict which was throughout characterised by a complete dis regard of the dictates of chivalry and humanity. New methods of warfare were also adopted which constituted a flagrant breach of the accepted laws and customs of war.
Use of Poisonous Gases.—Amongst such means was the em ployment of poisonous and asphyxiating gases and of liquid fire which were at first resorted to by Germany and subsequently adopted, by measure of self-defence, by her opponents. The progress of science has made this new weapon so barbarous and deadly that its use must be absolutely forbidden in all future wars. The Washington Conference of 1922 has reaffirmed the prohibition contained as regards "poison or poisoned arms" in The Hague Convention (supra) and has extended it to all as phyxiating gases and "all analogous liquids, materials or devices." The Geneva Protocol of July 17, 1925, which up to now has been agreed to by thirty-eight States, further extends the prohibition to all "bacteriological methods of warfare." War Zones.—The declaration in the Great War of military or war zones raises the question as to the legality of the exclusion of neutral vessels from vast parts of the high seas for the alleged self-protection of belligerents. The German declaration of February 4, 1915, proclaimed war zones round the 'north and west coasts of France and the waters surrounding the British Isles and enforced this closure both with mines and with sub marines which torpedoed at sight all vessels entering therein. The area was extended by the German Order of January 31, 1917, to the whole of the waters round Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Asia Minor and North Africa and a considerable number of vessels, both belligerent and neutral, were sunk with their crews, passengers and cargo. The German attacks were countered by the Allies by the North Sea barrage which was maintained by mine-fields, but in every case free lanes were left for neutral shipping. But even in this modified form, the declaration of war
zones is a violation of the principles of international law as it involves the destruction of neutral vessels and danger to innocent lives of non-combatant enemies and neutrals.
Submarines.—Submarines had for some years before the Great War been used for military offence and were included in the naval forces of the belligerents. During the War of 1914-18, Germany and her Allies employed this new arm for the indis criminate sinking of belligerent and neutral ships. This action was a serious breach of the rules of naval warfare which prohibit the destruction of merchant vessels except in the case of mili tary necessity and then only if the ships are enemy. As regards neutral vessels, their destruction is absolutely forbidden. Further, in the case of any merchant ship lawfully sunk, the law requires that the crew and 'passengers should first be removed to a place of safety. Owing to their inherent defects, submarines are unable to carry a prize crew or to provide for the protection of the persons removed from the ships they destroy. The Treaty signed at Washington on February 6, 1922, enacts that submarines are not, in any circumstances, exempt from the universal rules of international law and if a submarine cannot capture a merchant vessel in conformity with these rules, she must desist from attack and seizure. By article 4 of the Treaty, the Signatory Powers "recognise the practical impossibility of using submarines as com merce destroyers without violating, as they were violated in the recent war of 1914-18, the requirements universally accepted by civilised nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants, and to the end that the prohibition of the use of submarines as commerce destroyers shall be universally ac cepted as a part of the law of nations, they now accept that prohibition as henceforth binding as between themselves and they invite all other nations to adhere thereto." Reprisals in War.—During the Great War, resort was made on a considerable scale to the right of retaliation by both the Allies and the Central Powers. This-doctrine of retaliation invoked by belligerents as a measure of redress for the violation of the rules of warfare by their adversaries, constitutes a grave inter ference with neutral trade and leaves neutral Powers practically without any remedy against unjustified and oppressive innovations or abuses of belligerent rights. It is inequitable that a neutral should be made to suffer, in the pursuit of his lawful trade, for the breach of the regulations of war when in fact he is not re sponsible for such a breach and has no control over it. Retaliation by the Allied Powers originated with the Order in Council of March II, 1915, and the French Decree of March 13, 1915, ordering the seizure and detention of all goods of German origin, ownership or destination. By the Order in Council of February 16, 1917, all neutral vessels carrying goods of enemy origin or destination were made liable to capture and condemnation when encountered at sea on their way to or from a port in any neutral country affording means of access to the enemy territory unless they previously called at a British or Allied port. There can be no doubt that the retaliatory measures adopted by the Allies were fully justified by the violation of all rules of humanity and the serious menace to their rights and their very existence which the actions initiated by the Central Powers involved.