(2) The officers and men of all other armed vessels cruising against the enemy under lawful authority.1 The use of auxiliary, subsidized, or privately owned vessels regularly incorporated in the naval forces of a country is in accord with general opinion and practice in time of war. TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. General Questions as to War— Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 59-121. Hershey's "Essentials," 349354. Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, par. 1100–5. 2. Outbreak of War Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 121-144. Wheaton, 8th ed., part IV, chap. I, and Dana's notes, nos. 156-8. Halleck, Baker's 4th ed., chap. XVII, 574, etc. 3. Armed Forces of the State Higgins, "Peace Conference, Convention IV, Belligerents," 219221. Stockton's "Laws and Usages of War at Sea." Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 94–106. 1 Stockton's "Laws and Usages of War," p. 9. CHAPTER XVIII EFFECT OF WAR UPON INDIVIDUALS. EFFECT OF WAR AS TO PROPERTY 137. Effect of War upon Combatants and Non-combatants. -Doctor Lieber, in the instructions prepared by him for the government of armies of the United States in the field, which are known in the United States army as General Orders No. 100 and which orders were reissued without modification for the government of the armies of the United States during the war with Spain, says in Article 21: "The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of war. "Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself with its men in arms. The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies of war will admit. "Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and the inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war. "The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every privation of liberty and protection and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and still is with uncivilized people, the exception. "In modern regular wars of the Europeans and their descendants in other portions of the globe protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule; privation and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions. The effect of mobilization in modern times being to disarrange ordinary means of travel and transport, all aliens must submit to this fact and to its inconveniences as results of the inconvenience of war. "Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victorious government or rulers, and they may expel every one who declines to do so. But whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives." 1 "On the outbreak of war," says Higgins, "intercourse between the citizens of our state and those of the enemy must cease; diplomatic agents and consuls will be withdrawn; some treaties are at once annulled, others suspended, while those regulating the conduct of hostilities come into force. Subjects of the belligerents travelling or resident in the enemy country will probably be allowed to continue their residence unmolested so long as they do nothing hostile to the state, or they may be permitted to return by a neutral route unless they are state officials, officers or members of the armed forces of the nation, though in case of military necessity even private citizens may be expelled on short notice, as has been done in several of the wars of the past half century." 2 In a broad sense the citizens or subjects of a belligerent state are divided into combatants and non-combatants. Combatants are persons included in the armed forces of the 1 Davis, "Elements of Int. Law," 3d ed., pp. 508-9. 2 Higgins, "War and the Private Citizen,” p. 28. belligerent states who are bearing arms for warlike purposes. They may be killed or wounded in fight and if captured may be held as prisoners of war until exchanged or the war ceases. Their nationality makes no difference as to their status or treatment unless they are subjects or citizens of the state against which they are fighting or deserters from the armed forces of the same state. In such cases they are liable to execution as traitors or deserters if captured instead of being held as prisoners of war. Otherwise they are entitled to all of the rights of war under the rules prescribed as in international law and conventions. If they are neutrals in the ranks of belligerents they receive the same treatment as individuals of the enemy state. They are entitled neither to immunities nor to special severities. It is true that their own state may have the right, seldom exercised, of punishing them for a breach of neutrality law, but so far as the enemy state is concerned they are in all respects lawful combatants. Non-combatants are those individuals belonging to the belligerent states not bearing arms but engaged in peaceful pursuits. They are, when not concerned in hostile movements or in the violations of the rules of war, free from military attack or imprisonment. They are, however, exposed to all of the personal inconveniences and injuries which may arise incidentally from military or naval operations, such as an attack or bombardment of a defended place, firing upon ships carrying passengers, or any belligerent actions toward the railways of and used by an army and similar acts of war. The services of non-combatant inhabitants of an occupied territory may be required and used by the occupying forces if they are not of such a nature as to involve them directly in military operations against their own country. In regard to this, Article 52 of the laws and customs of war on land, Hague Convention No. IV, says that "neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants, except for the necessities of the army of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the country and of such a nature as not to imply for the population any obligation to take part in military operations against their country. "These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied. "Supplies in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt shall be acknowledged." Other matters that involve non-combatants in case of occupied territory will be discussed later. There are certain non-combatants who from their prestige, high position, and great importance to the enemy can be captured and retained as prisoners of war. These include the reigning monarch and members of his family, also the chief ruler of a country, the chief officers of the enemy government, and any other persons whose capture for evident reasons may be of great value to the belligerent. A belligerent state is not obliged to permit the nationals of an enemy to remain in his territory although this is frequently done. It can be considered that by the rules of international law such nationals, if not permitted to remain, must have a reasonable time for withdrawal. This does not apply to the subjects of an enemy who are in the military service of the enemy, as active or reserve officers or men who may be detained as prisoners of war. As to the treatment of subjects or citizens of the enemy who are not in the military services, the practice as to their expulsion varies even in modern times. When large numbers of the nationals of an enemy are in the territory of other belligerents and from the necessary military movement cannot be received by their own country, it is not unreasonable, if considered wise, to intern them in a chosen section of the country in which they have been domiciled. Oppenheim says: "Thus, during the Crimean War Russian subjects in Great Britain and, France were allowed to remain there, as were likewise Russians in Japan and Japanese in |