It was the opinion in the eighteenth century that the State against which the war was to be waged and other States were entitled to demand that they be informed by a declaration of the purpose of a State to engage in war. The Roman idea of a bellum justum involved a previous declaration. The ceremony of declaration was, however, a religious one and may have been rather to justify the war before the gods than before men. The chivalry of the middle ages demanded a previous declaration and this was frequently formally carried to the ruler against whom the hostilities were to be waged. Such was the practice in the early part of the seventeenth century. Grotius says that not only must a war to be just be waged by the sovereign authority, but it must be duly and formally declared. He distinguishes among wars allowing wars without declaration for the recovery of a State's own property or to ward off danger. He, however, maintains that in order to obtain the advantages flowing from the law of nations a declaration of war by one of the parties if not by both is essential. His treatise provides for the conditional declaration of war when it is conjoined with a demand for restitution. (De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Lib. III, cap. III.) Bynkershoek in the early eighteenth century regarded declaration as the honorable method of entering on war, but not as absolutely essential, and before his period it had become more and more common for States to go to war without declaration. During the eighteenth century and the early ninteenth century the practice of declaration declined, and it was not till the latter half of the nineteenth century that there arose a movement in favor of declaration. Maurice, in his book on "Hostilities without Declaration of War," covers the period between 1700 and 1870. Of 111 wars during this period he finds four formal declarations. Eleven declarations seem to have been made either formally or informally. In some instances diplomatic relations were broken off or some action involving an ultimatum was taken. A large number, perhaps REASONS FOR DECLARATION. 47 forty, seem to have been begun without declaration in order to take the enemy by surprise. Since 1870 there have been thirty or more cases where States have resorted to arms. Some of these hostilities hardly deserve the dignity of the classification as wars. Domestic revolutions have often begun without declaration. The list includes: Peruvian revolution, 1872. Colombian revolution, 1879. Haitian revolution, 1883. Haitian revolution, 1888. Of these, hostilities consequent upon internal revolutions would ordinarily not be declared nor would hostilities upon uncivilized tribes. But of the entire list there were only nine declarations, of which five might be considered preliminary. Before 1907 post facto declarations were common; even the United States Congress, with which rests the power to declare war, declared on April 25, 1898, "that war exists and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of América and the Kingdom of Spain." From this review of more than two hundred years it is evident that preliminary declarations were rarely issued during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Reasons for a declaration of war.-If war were simply a fact without legal consequences, there might be reasons why a declaration should not be regarded as necessary in all cases. War gives rise to certain legal consequences. The relations of citizens of the belligerent States to one another are changed. The relations of citizens of belligerent and of neutral States are changed. The relations and obligations of the neutral States and of citizens of neutral States to the belligerents are changed. The neutral State is bound to prohibit certain actions ordinarily permitted. The citizen of a neutral State is liable to treatment which in time of peace would not be tolerated. A neutral State in time of war may not sell arms to a belligerent State. A neutral merchant vessel in time of war must tolerate visit and search and other restrictions upon her freedom. The custom developed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of dating the beginning of war from the date of the first act of hostilities, but in practice that was not easy to determine. The courts of different States have given different interpretations to the phrase "first act of hostilities." Indeed, the courts of one State have at different periods and in different cases given different interpretations to the phrase. When wars were mainly upon land and the interests and well-being of States not concerned in the hostilities were not greatly affected the necessity of a declaration of the time at which war existed or would exist was not so essential. Moral obligation to declare war.-Prof. Westlake sets forth the moral obligation to make a declaration: The wars between the continental powers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were often commenced in fact before their declaration, and were sometimes carried through without any declaration, quite as a matter of course, without that confused reference to reprisals as a distinct institution, which helped to warp the thoughts and the conduct of the maritime powers. Thus on all sides the habit arose of regarding lawful war-that is, war with all its legal effects, as commenced no less by fact than by declaration, and dating it from the commencement of hostilities. By that term, if we try to put a definite meaning on it, we must understand the first act of force done with the intent of war and not with that of reprisals or pacific blockade, or the first act of force done with the intent of reprisals or pacific blockade if a war follows, or the first act of force done with whatever intent-selfdefense, seizing what is called a material guarantee, or any otherwhich the State affected by it chooses to regard as one of war. Nor is it possible to refuse its legal effects to a state of war so entered on or to date its commencement as between the parties otherwise. But from CONVENTION ON OPENING OF HOSTILITIES. 49 the point of view of political morality it can not be too strongly maintained that so serious a step as the entrance on a state of war ought not to be taken without the deliberation for which the only security approaching to adequacy is the necessity of expression. No power doing an act of force with the intent of war, nor any power treating as war an act of force done by another, is morally justified in omitting to accompany its conduct by some kind of declaration. Nor again is any power doing an act of force morally justified in not having a clear view whether it intends it as war or not. If an act of force affects third powers and they submit to it, deeming at the same time that it places them in the position of neutrals in war with neutral rights and duties, they can scarcely avoid stating the view which they take of the situation. (International Law, Part II, War, p. 22.) Hague Convention, opening of hostilities.-The Second Hague Conference proposed and adopted a Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities. The Convention was ratified by the United States March 10, 1908. The official French text is as follows: ART. 1. Les Puissances contractantes reconnaissent que les hostilités entre elles ne doivent pas commencer sans un avertissement préalable et non équivoque, qui aura, soit la forme d'une déclaration de guerre motivée, soit celle d'un ultimatum avec déclaration de guerre conditionnelle. ART. 2. L'état de guerre devra être notifié sans retard aux Puissances neutres et ne produira effet à leur égard qu'après réception d'une notification qui pourra être faite méme par voie telegraphique. Toutefois les Puissances neutres ne pourraient invoquer l'absence de notification, s'il était établi d'une manière non douteuse qu'en fait elles connaissaient l'état de guerre. Article 1 is as proposed by the French delegation at the Hague Conference of 1907 at the session of the second commission on June 22, 1907. This proposition was seconded by the Belgian delegation. The Belgian delegate pointed out the uncertainty of practice and opinion as to the necessity of a declaration of war before engaging in hostilities. The Netherlands delegate said, in the discussion before the second subcommission, on July 5, 1907: II. "Convient-il" est demandé ensuite "que l'ouverture des hostilités soit précédée d'une déclaration de guerre ou d'un acte équivalent?" 70387-11- -4 Notre point de vue en cet égard est le même que l'Institut de droit international a exprimé dans sa session de Gand au mois de septembre de l'année passée. Il est conforme aux exigences de l'esprit du droit international moderne, à la loyauté que les nations se doivent dans leurs rapports mutuels, ainsi qu'à l'intérêt commun de tous les Etats que les hostilités ne puissent commencer sans un avertissement préalable et non équivoque. Pourquoi? Pour des raisons qui, selon moi, se trouvent sous la main. On demande le désarmement. Pourquoi donc, ne commencerionsnous pas par ce qui est très-facilement à atteindre? Si cela ne mène pas directement et ostensiblement au but voulu, du moins cela contribuera indirectement à ce que les Etats n'aient pas autant besoin de rester armés en temps de paix, pour ne pas être pris à l'improviste. De plus, pour tant de relations commerciales qui de nos jours se sont développées si extraordinairement, il importe que le moment où la guerre, qui bouleverse et change tout, a commencé, soit fixé et puisseêtre déterminé exactement. III. À la troisième question: "Convient-il de fixer un délai qui devra s'écouler entre la notification d'un tel acte et l'ouverture des hostilités?" ma réponse est encore affirmative. C'est pour cette raison que je me suis permis d'amender la proposition de la Délégation française avec laquelle je suis au reste d'accord. Il me semble que dans une matière d'aussi grande importance que celle qui nous occupe, il est désirable de préciser et d'éviter les termes vagues. Or, si l'on ne précise pas ce que l'on désire et veut atteindre avec le terme avertissement préalable, cet avertissement en peut être un, envoyé à l'adversaire une heure, même une demie-heure ou moins encore avant que les soldats passent la frontière. Il va sans dire que le préalable ne sert alors à rien. Veut-on écarter les surprises, désire-t-on prévenir que l'avertissement ne devienne à cet égard qu'une simple forme, aime-t-on à contribuer au tranquille développement des relations pacifiques des peuples, alors il faut fixer un délai et mettre au moins un intervalle de 24 heures, et, comme il me semble que c'est bien le moindre qu'on puisse donner, j'aurai l'honneur de le proposer. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III, p 166.) The Comité d' Examen, which considered the proposed rules, reported that the question of opening of hostilities without declaration had often led to recriminations on the part of the belligerents; that it was certainly expedient that there be some definite regulation. The two propositions were from France and the Netherlands, France proposing that there be a declaration prior to hostilities and the Netherlands that there be in addition a delay of |