[亨利梅因：国际法Lecture6]LECTURE VI. THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.One point of considerable interest in International Law is the very different degree of durability which the various parts...+阅读

LECTURE X. MENTIONS OF BELLIGERENTS ON LAND.

The Brussels Conference failed to solve a number of questions of modern origin which he arisen as to the status of the civil population of a country when， by rising en masse， they take upon themselves military duty in resistance to an invader. The trenchant German scheme， which was submitted to the Conference， failed to mand support， and a number of rules， which were not open to the same objections as those which the German delegate proposed， were not universally acceptable. But， as in the case of many other remendations emanating from the Conference， a large number of their proposals are found in the Manuals of warfare which so many civilised Governments he now placed in the hands of their officers. As regards the most important point which had to be settled， there is a general tendency to advise that a uniform of some kind shall be adopted by the non-military population， and that the corps which they form shall be treated with humanity， and not shot or hanged as mere marauders. These questions do not bee of much practical importance till a large part of the invaded country has been occupied by the forces of the invader. In the former lecture I took the investment of Paris by the German troops as exemplifying the point of a war at which this branch of law assumes a new importance. We he now to consider the legal position of that part of the invaded country which is under military occupation by the enemy. The view of a country in such a position has much changed in modern tinges. Of old the theory of the position of an invaded country was much affected by the Roman Law. Land， like everything else， might be captured by occupancy （occupatio） subject to what the Romans called post-liminium， a legal rule which is generally described as embodying a legal fiction under which a citizen who should after captivity return to his country， or property which after capture should fall again into the hands of the restored owner， reverts to his or its antecedent position. Thus territory militarily occupied was regarded as passing to the occupant subject to the ill-defined risks arising from the return of the former sovereign. Frederick the Great， when he had invaded a country， usually pelled the population to supply him with recruits； and there is one instance in which the King of Denmark sold what were then two Swedish provinces —— Bremen and Verden —— to Hanover. The inconvenience of this condition of the law was much felt after the close of the Seven Years' War， and the position of a country once invaded， from which the enemy has retired， was always settled by particular treaty. Manifold as he been the variations of boundary in Europe， they are now always regulated by treaty at the end of a war， and even in the East it is now not easy to find territory held by the rights arising from simple conquest. The only instance of a new province held on the mere title of conquest， and incorporated with the other territories of the conquering country， is the Indian province long known as Lower Burmah. The King， who still retained a part of his territories， which he reigned over at Mandalay， refused， even though utterly defeated， to enter into any treaty of cession， and after the second war Lower Burmah was treated as already part of the general Indian territory.

I he said that the most critical moment in great wars of invasion is that at which a large part of the territory is militarily occupied. There is very much on the subject in the modern Manuals of war. The following is a summary of the law.

An invader is said to be in military occupation of so much of a country as is wholly abandoned by the forces of the enemy. The occupation must be real and not nominal， and it is laid down that a 'paper' occupation is even more objectionable in its character and effects than a 'paper' blockade On the other hand， the occupation of part of a district from the whole of which the enemy has retired， is necessarily an occupation of that district， as it is impossible in any other way to occupy any considerable extent of territory. The true test of military occupation is exclusive possession. For example， the reduction of a fortress which dominates the surrounding country gives military possession of the country dominated， but not of any other fortress which does not submit to the invader. Military occupation ceases as soon as the forces of the invader retreat or advance in such a manner as to quit their hold on the occupied territory. In the event of a military occupation the authority of the regular Government is supplanted by that of the invading army. The rule imposed by the invader is the law of war. It is not the law of the invading state nor the law of the invaded territory. It may in its character be either civil or military， or partly one and partly the other. In every case the source from which it derives its authority is the same， namely the customs of war， and not any municipal law； and the General enforcing the rule is responsible only to his own Government and not to the invaded people. The rule of military occupation has relation only to the inhabitants of the invaded country. The troops and camp followers in a foreign country which has been occupied let us say by the English army remain under English military law， and are in no respects amenable to the rule of military occupation. As a general rule， military occupation extends only to such matters as concern the safety of the army， the invader usually permitting the ordinary civil tribunals of the country to deal with ordinary crimes mitted by the inhabitants. The course， however， to be adopted in such a case is at the discretion of the invader. He may abrogate any law in the country， and substitute other rules for it. He may create special tribunals， or he may lee the native tribunals to exercise their usual jurisdiction. The special tribunals cre

ated by an invader for carrying into effect the rule of military occupation in the case of individual offenders are usually military courts， framed on the model and carrying on their proceedings after the manner of courts-martial； but of course， technically， courts so established by an English General would not be courts-martial within the meaning of our Army Acts. The courts would be regulated only by the will of the General. The most important power exercised by an invader occupying a territory is that of punishing， in such manner as he thinks expedient， the inhabitants guilty of breaking the rules laid down by him for securing the safety of the army. The right of inflicting such punishment in case of necessity is undoubted； but the interest of the invader no less than the dictates of humanity demand that inhabitants who he been guilty of an act which is only a crime in consequence of its being injurious to the enemy， should be treated with the greatest leniency consistent with the safety and well-being of the invading army.

The American rules on the subject of the government of armies in the field say； Martial law， or in other words the law of military occupation， should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered. Greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist， or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most plete sway is allowed even in the mander's own country when face to face with an enemy， because of the absolute necessities of the case and of the paramount duty of defending the country against invasion. To se the country is of course paramount to all other considerations.

In conclusion， it must be borne in mind that an invader cannot， according to the customs of war， call on the inhabitants to enlist as soldiers or to engage actively in military operations against their own country. The theory in its full sway is this. In a country militarily occupied all executive and legislative power passes to the invader. It does not follow that he exercises these powers， but theoretically they belong to him. The Duke of Wellington made some observations in the English Parliament which are recognized as authoritative in all the modern Manuals. 'Martial law，' he said， 'is neither more nor less than the will of the General who mands the army； in fact， martial law means no law at all. Therefore the General who declares martial law and mands that it shall be carried into execution is bound to lay down distinctly the regulations and rules according to which his will is to be carried out. Now， I he in no country carried out martial law； that is to say， I he not governed a large proportion of a country by my own will. But then what did I do？ I declared that the country should be governed according to its own national law， and I carried into execution my so declared will.' paring this state of the law with that from which we started， it is evident that the ancient practice and theory of occupation he much changed. They he not now any connection with Roman Law， nor would any one nowadays think of borrowing the Roman Law for their rules. The modern practice rests， in fact， upon military necessity， and is circumscribed by the military necessity. An invading General can do certain things because， by the hypothesis， there is no one else to do them. In England the legal rule is the same in peace as in war. The soldiery can always be employed in our own country when sufficient necessity can be shown for using them through the temporary or local abeyance of civil authority.

This state of things es to an end with the cessation of war. Wars do not in our day linger on， as did the old wars of succession and the old wars of religion. There is always within some moderate time a treaty of peace. Indeed， the modern difficulty in closing a war is， sometimes， to find an authority capable of making peace. This difficulty was much felt by the Germans after they had proceeded a great length in their conquest of France in the last war. They made up their minds that the only authority which could make a treaty on the part of France which Frenchmen would respect was a National Assembly， and therefore before making peace they insisted that such an Assembly should be elected.

I think it may be useful to say a few words on the treaties of peace by which war is nowadays brought to an end. In modern times a peace is always preceded by an armistice， and an armistice by a suspension of arms， which is only a shorter armistice. The rule laid down by the international lawyers is that a state of war is brought to an end by a treaty of peace or by a general truce. A treaty of peace puts an end to the war and absolutely abolishes the subject of it； a general truce puts an end to the war， but lees undecided the question which ge occasion to it. In modern times these general truces he fallen out of use. They were mon enough in the Middle Ages， especially between the Turks and their Christian enemies， because the religion of neither party permitted the batants to conclude a definite treaty of peace. It has always been laid down that treaties and general truces can only be concluded by the sovereign power of a state， and not that of any other authority. An armistice is defined as a partial truce. The power to conclude an armistice is essential to the fulfilment by the manding officer of his official duties， and therefore he is presumed to he such power delegated to him by his sovereign without any special mand. This presumption of authority is held to be so strong that it cannot be rebutted by any act of the sovereign. If an officer makes an armistice in disobedience to orders received from his sovereign， he is punishable by that sovereign； but the sovereign is bound by the armistice， inasmuch as the enemy could not be supposed to he known of the limitation of authority imposed on the officer.

以下为关联文档：

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture14LECTURE XII. PROPOSALS TO ABATE WAR.To this last lecture of the present course， it seems to me desirable that I should briefly notice some assertions or suggest...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture7LECTURE VII. THE MITIGATION OF WAR.The age in which International Law was born was an age of land wars. The wars of succession and of feudal ascendancy had par...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture3LECTURE III. STATE SOVEREIGNTYI now propose to occupy you with a group of questions arising out of a subject of much interest and magnitude —— the Sovereignt...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture4LECTURE IV. TERRITORIAL RIGHTS OF SOVEREIGNTY.All the department of International Law with which I was occupied at the close of my last lecture， the acquisition...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture9LECTURE IX. RULES AS TO PRISONERS AND QUARTER.At the close of my last lecture I spoke of the Geneva Convention of 1864 as the farthest， as well as the most rece...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture13LECTURE XI. RIGHTS OF CAPTURE BY LAND.In all modern books on this subject there is more or less distinct condemnation of unauthorized pillage by the soldiers o...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture8LECTURE VIII. THE MODERN LAWS OF WAR.In my last lecture I explained the detestation which newly-invented instruments of war sometimes occasioned in olden days，...

亨利梅因：国际法Lecture11It is suggested by several of the international writers， and it is probable， that armistices first arose from the truce or truces of God which were repeatedly pro...

新东方背诵文选80篇：23亨利·福特HenryFord23 Henry Ford Although Henry Ford's name is closely associated with the concept of mass production, he should receive equal credit for introducing labor practic...