The Russian Articles of War.
PART II.

THE CONGRESS AT BRUSSELS.

REPORT

BY THE ST. PANCRAS FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. IN a Memoir drawn up on the 23rd of July, 1874, this Committee published an analysis of the Russian project which, under pretence of mitigating the sufferings endured in war, aimed at introducing a code of laws calculated to aid the military Powers in the subjugation of the maritime and the minor States. The efforts of the Foreign Affairs Committees failed to induce Her Majesty's Government to abstain from sending a Delegate to the Congress held at Brussels to consider the Russian project. The Congress was held, the British Delegate attended, a Draft International Declaration was drawn up, and the final Protocol, which, however, did not include that Declaration, was signed by all the Delegates, including the Delegate from this country. Finally, it has since been proposed by Russia that the Congress should meet again, this time at St. Petersburg, to resume its labours. It is, therefore, necessary to examine into the proceedings of the Congress, and to mark what has been done, how far England has been committed, and what are the objects which, under pretences of various kinds and degrees, Russia is seeking to obtain. Her Majesty's Government promised that the Protocols should be published during the recess, and they have kept their word. The Protocols and the Correspondence between Lord DERBY and the English Delegate, Major-General Sir ALFRED HORSFORD, were published in a supplement to the London Gazette of Friday, the 23rd of October, 1874. They Occupy 184 pages. The Protocols, however, are in French, which is not, as on former occasions, accompanied by a translation.

We divide our investigation into five heads:

1. What is the character of the proposed International Declaration?

2. How far has the English Government committed itself?

3. What has been the effect of the Congress upon its own members?

4. What are the designs of Russia in the matter? 5. What is the position of England?

I.

THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION. If it could be admitted that any International Articles of War ought to be drawn up and agreed to, the change between the Russian project, as it originally stood and as it came out from the Conference, would be a subject of congratulation. If the project had been

D

attempted to be imposed by Russia upon a confederacy which she had defeated in war, the result of the Conference might have been taken as a reversal of that defeat. But Russia knew, and we have to recollect, that the Conference was not preceded by any victory of Russia over any European State, that all she could obtain was to be obtained by that diplomatic skill in which alone she excels, and that this resolves itself into two operations: first, to delude her victims into the belief that something has to be done; and secondly, to find out how much they will do. Bearing this in mind, we see at once that all that has been really gained at the Conference has been gained by Russia. When, therefore, we record the pretensions which she has for the moment abandoned, we are only recording what we have not yet lost. The original Russian project opened with five "General Principles," of which the most important was

II. Operations of war must be directed exclusively against the forces and the means of making war of the hostile State, and not against its subjects, so long as the latter do not themselves take any active part in the war.

On this Sir A. HORSFORD remarks, page 5085 :—

"The above five paragraphs on General Principles,' which appear at the head of the original project, were not brought forward for discussion, and do not find any place in the modified text."

But he adds:

"The principles themselves, however, had necessarily to be considered in the course of the Conference, as they form the groundwork of several Articles of the Project."

That is to say, that the "General Principles," which were too obnoxious to be proclaimed as the basis of the plan, are to be adopted surreptitiously, and afterwards deduced as corollaries from the plan itself. Certainly it would have been better for Russia if she could have had it recorded in an International Declaration, though in draft and without signature, that operations of war must be directed against the State and not against its subjects.

We come now to Section I. We place in parallel columns the original project and that modified by the Conference.

Chapter I.-OF MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE HOSTILE STATE.
ORIGINAL PROJECT.

§ 1. The occupation by the enemy of a part of the territory of a State with which he is at war, suspends, ipso facto, the authority of the legal power of the latter, and substitutes in its place the military authority of the occupying State.

§ 2. The enemy who occupies a district can, according to the requirements of the war and in the public interest, either maintain in full force the laws existing there in time of peace; modify them in part; or suspend them altogether.

MODIFIED TEXT.

Article 1. A territory is considered as occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation only extends to those territories where this authority is esta blished and can be exercised.

Art. 2. The authority of the legal power being suspended, and having actually passed into the hands of the occupier, he shall take every step in his power to re-establish and secure, as far as possible, public safety and social order.

Art. 3. With this object he will maintain the laws which were in force in the country in time of peace, and will only modify, suspend, or replace them by others if necessity obliges him to do so.

ORIGINAL PROJECT. all institutions devoted to scientific or benevolent purposes, shall not be subject to seizure by the army of occupation. Every seizure or intentional destruction of such establishments, monuments, works of art, or scientific museums, shall be punished by the competent authorities. Pages 5085-6.

MODIFIED TEXT.

to religion, charity, education, arts and sciences, although belonging to the State, shall be treated as private property.

Every seizure, destruction of, or wilful damage to such establishments, historical monuments, or works of art or of science, should be prosecuted by the competent authorities."-Pages 5087-8.

The tone of the modified text is much less offensive than that of the original project. The original project assumes to absolve from their allegiance the inhabitants of an occupied State and to confer upon the invader rights which even the legitimate authorities had never possessed. From the beginning of the chapter down to the seventh clause it takes the shape of a statute enabling the invader to do as he likes. The modified text first merely defines occupation and afterwards affects to impose restrictions upon the invader. But it recognises as a matter of fact that the legal power in an occupied district has been suspended and has actually passed into the hands of the invader. What, too, are the restrictions enacted against that invader? He is to re-establish and secure public safety and social order as far as possible. He is to replace the existing laws by others only if necessity obliges him to do So. The taxes are to be collected as far as possible according to existing practice. That is to say the invader is to obey the rules or to say he cannot do so. Article 8 deciares that certain cases of destruction should be prosecuted by the competent authorities. Suppose a general of division finds it convenient to lodge his soldiers in a parish church or a local museum, what authority is competent to prosecute him? Is it the mayor who has accepted office under him, or is it the Commander-in-Chief who is to correct his subordinate? Is the Commander-in-Chief to accept or not the excuse "Necessity obliges me to do so"? We are not left without guidance on this point, for it was discussed at the Conference.

"In commencing the examination of § 8, M. Le General de VOIGTS-RIIETZ (first Delegate for Germany), begs to observe that in discussing Chapter IV. (Of Sieges and Bombardments,') the Committee has decided that only strong places can be besieged, and that in that case all measures shall be taken to cause private property to be respected, except in case of necessity, sauf les nécessités de la guerre.' Here there is a tendency to contradict this principle, since it is said that in no case can private property be seized. Now, in practice, that is impossible. The churches, for example, are most useful buildings in summer to serve as ambulances and hospitals. There is no tower which would not serve as an observatory. There are convents and even muscums which must necessarily be employed for military purposes. It would be proper, according to the Delegate for Germany, to add a restriction to the too general bearing of the Article, and to say if necessity does not require their employment for this purpose. Nobody can argue that this is contrary to law and custom. We must proclaim the principle, but reserve the inevitable exceptions. General de VOIGTS-RHETZ proposes at the same time to comprehend the Communes in the enumeration of S."

The "principle" referred to by the German Delegate is twofold. First it is that of sacrificing every thing to the necessities of the war without reserve. Afterwards the "principle" is that of respecting private property. But to this principle exceptions are to be made. Such exceptions are, indeed, "inevitable" if the "principle" of re

specting property has to be assimilated to the "principle" of making war. In other words, war is a suspension, not only of the rights but of the existence of property. But instead of insisting on the reservation of exceptions, General de VOIGTS-RHETZ adds to the list of unassailable property that of the Communes, so as to make the observance of the rules laid down still more difficult and therefore more likely to be infringed without scruple on the one hand, and without punishment on the other, by those "competent authorities" whose mention can only have been retained in the modified text for the sake of the joke.

A portion of the scheme which excited an animated discussion was that which proposed to limit the title of Belligerents to the regular army.

Chapter II. OF THOSE WHO ARE TO BE RECOGNISED AS BELLIGERENTS.
MODIFIED TEXT.

ORIGINAL PROJECT.

§ 9. The rights of belligerents shall not only be enjoyed by the army, but also by the militia and volunteers in the following cases:

1. If, having at their head a person responsible for his subordinates, they are at the same time subject to orders from head-quarters;

2. If they wear some distinctive badge, recognisable at a distance;

3. If they carry arms openly; and 4. If, in their operations they conform to the laws, customs, and procedure of

war.

Armed bands not complying with the above-mentioned conditions shall not possess the rights of belligerents; they shall not be considered as regular enemies, and in case of capture shall be proceeded against judicially.-Page 5088.

Art. 9. The laws, rights, and duties of war are applicable not only to the army, but likewise to militia and corps of volunteers complying with the following conditions:

1. That they have at their head a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. That they wear some settled distinctive badge recognisable at a distance;

3. That they carry arms openly; and 4. That, in their operations, they conform to the laws and customs of war.

In those countries where the militia form the whole or part of the army, they shall be included under the denomination of " 'army."

Art. 10. The population of a non-occupied territory, who, on the approach of the enemy, of their own accord take up arms to resist the invading troops, without having had time to organise themselves in conformity with Article 9, shall be considered as belligerents, if they respect the laws and customs of war.Page 5090.

When this chapter was discussed in the Committee which was delegated to examine the project before it was laid before the full Conference, the President, Baron JOMINI, the principal Delegate of Russia, opened the debate by proposing to suppress the final paragraph. "The Committee agreed to this proposal."

In this way was avoided the enactment of a statute condemning irregular combatants to be shot in cold blood. But as no authority exists, or is likely to exist, which will exercise any control over an invading army, the Military Power loses nothing by this courtesy of the Russian President. When it is said that certain things are permitted, the obvious meaning is, that those who have the power in their hands may punish anything which is not permitted as they think proper. Nevertheless, the plan is really very much modified. The necessity of orders from head-quarters is given up, and those who have