Kitabı oku: «The League of Nations and Its Problems: Three Lectures», sayfa 4

X. However this may be, and whatever may be the details of the organisation of the League, such necessary organisation is not an end in itself but a means of attaining three objects, namely: International Legislation, International Administration of Justice, and International Mediation. I shall discuss International Administration of Justice and International Mediation in my next lecture, to-day I will only draw your attention to International Legislation.

In using the term 'International Legislation,' it must be understood that 'legislation' is here to be understood in a figurative sense only. When we speak of legislation in everyday language, we mean that process of parliamentary activity by which Municipal Statutes are called into existence. Municipal Legislation presupposes a sovereign power, which prescribes rules of conduct to its subjects. It is obvious that within the Community of States no such kind of legislation can take place. Rules of conduct for the members of the League of Nations can only be created by an agreement amongst those members. Whereas Municipal Statutes contain the rules of conduct set by an authority sovereign over its subjects, International Statutes—if I may be allowed to use that term—contain rules of conduct which the members of the Community of States have agreed to set for themselves. International Statutes are created by the so-called Law-making Treaties of the Powers. But in one point Municipal Legislation and the Law-making Treaties of the Powers resemble one another very closely:—both intend to create law, and for this reason it is permissible to use the term 'International Legislation' figuratively for the conclusion of such international treaties as contain rules of International Law.

Now it would be very misleading to believe that no International Legislation has taken place in the past. The fact is that, from the Vienna Congress of 1815 onwards, agreements have been arrived at upon a number of rules of International Law. However, such agreements have only occurred occasionally, because the Community of civilised States has not hitherto possessed a permanently established organ for legislating. Much of the legislation which has taken place in the past was only a by-product of Congresses or Conferences which had assembled for other purposes. On the other hand, when legislation on a certain subject was considered pressing, a Congress or Conference was convened for that very purpose. It will be only when the Hague Peace Conferences have become permanently established that an organ of the League of Nations for legislating internationally will be at hand. And a wide field is open for such legislation. The bulk of International Law in its present state is—if I may say so—a book law, it is customary law which is only to be found in text-books of International Law; it is, as regards many points, controversial; it has many gaps; and it is in many ways uncertain. International Legislation will be able gradually to create international statutes which will turn this book law into firm, clear, and authoritative statutory law.

XI. But you must not imagine that International Legislation is an easy matter. It is in fact full of difficulties of all kinds. I will only mention four:

There is, firstly, the language question. Since it is impossible to draft International Statutes in all languages, it is absolutely necessary to agree upon one language, and this language at present is, as you all know, French. Yet, difficult as the language question is, it is not insurmountable. It is hardly greater than the difficulty which arises when two States, which speak different languages, have to agree upon an ordinary convention. One point, however, must be specially observed, and that is: when any question of the interpretation of an International Statute occurs, it is the French text of the statute which is authoritative, and not the text of the translation into other languages.

XII. Another difficulty with regard to International Legislation is the conflicting national interests of the different States. As International Statutes are only possible when the several States come to an agreement, it will often not be possible to legislate internationally on a given matter, because the interests of the different States will be so conflicting that an agreement cannot be arrived at. On the other hand, as time goes on the international interests of the several States frequently become so powerful that these Governments are quite ready to brush aside their particular interests, and to agree upon a compromise which makes International Legislation concerning the matter in question possible.

XIII. A third difficulty with regard to International Legislation is of quite a particular kind. It arises from the fact that International Statutes cannot be created by a vote of the majority of States, but only by a unanimous vote of all the members of the Community of civilised States.

This difficulty, however, can be overcome by dropping the contention that no legislation of any kind can be proceeded with unless every member of the League of Nations agrees to it. It is a well-known fact that a distinction has to be made between universal International Law, that is, rules to which every civilised State agrees, and general International Law, that is, rules to which only the greater number of States agree. Now it is quite certain that no universal International Law can be created by legislation to which not every member of the League of Nations has agreed. Nothing, however, ought to prevent those States which are ready to agree to certain new rules of International Law, from legislating for their own number on a certain matter. If such legislation is really of value, the time will come when the dissenting States will gradually accede. The Second Hague Peace Conference acted on this principle, for a good many of its Conventions were only agreed upon by the greater number, and not by all, of the participating States.

XIV. A fourth difficulty with regard to International Legislation is the difficulty of the interpretation of, and the construction to be put upon, International Statutes as well as ordinary international conventions. We do not as yet possess universally recognised rules of International Law concerning such interpretation and construction. Each nation applies to International Statutes those rules of interpretation and construction which are valid for the interpretation and construction of their Municipal Statutes.

Many international disputes have been due in the past to this difficulty of interpretation and construction. A notorious example is that of the interpretation of Article 23(h) of the Hague Regulations of 1907 concerning Land Warfare, which lays down the rule that it is forbidden 'to declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a Court of Law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.'

Germany and other continental States interpret this article to mean that the Municipal Law of a State is not allowed to declare that the outbreak of war suspends or avoids contracts with alien enemies, or that war prevents alien enemies from bringing an action in the Courts.

On the other hand, England and the United States of America interpret this article to mean merely that the occupant of enemy territory is prohibited from declaring abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a Court of Law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party.

What is the cause of this divergent interpretation of an article, the literal meaning of which seems to be quite clear? The divergence is due to the different mode of interpretation of statutes resorted to by continental Courts, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, by British and American Courts.

Continental Courts take into consideration not only the literal meaning of a clause of a statute, but also the intention of the legislator as evidenced by—what I should like to call—the history of the clause. They look for the intention of the draftsman, they search the Parliamentary proceedings concerning the clause, and they interpret and construe the clause with regard to the intention of the draftsman as well as to the proceedings in Parliament.

Now Article 23(h) of the Hague Regulations was inserted on the motion of the German delegates to the Second Hague Peace Conference, and there is no doubt that the German delegates intended by its insertion to prevent the Municipal Law of belligerents from possessing a rule according to which the outbreak of war suspends or avoids contracts with alien enemies, and prohibits alien enemies from bringing an action in the Courts. It is for this reason that Germany and other continental States interpret Article 23(h) according to the intention of the German delegates.

On the other hand, in interpreting and construing a clause of a statute, British and American Courts refuse to take into consideration the intention of the draftsman, Parliamentary discussions concerning the clause, and the like. They only take into consideration the literal meaning of the clause as it stands in the statute of which it is a part. Now Article 23(h) is a clause in the Convention concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It is one of several paragraphs of Article 23 which comprises the prohibition of a number of acts by the armed forces of belligerents in warfare on land, such as the employment of poison or poisoned arms, and the like. The British and American delegates, believing that it only concerned an act on the part of belligerent forces occupying enemy territory, therefore consented to the insertion of Article 23(h), and our Court of Appeal—in the case of Porter v. Freundenberg (1915)—held that Article 23(h) is to be interpreted in that sense.¹

Be that as it may, the difficulty of interpretation and construction of international treaties will exist so long as no International Statute has been agreed upon which lays down detailed rules concerning interpretation and construction, or so long as International Courts have not developed such rules in practice. But the problem of International Courts is itself a very difficult one; it will be the subject of my third lecture which will deal with Administration of Justice and Mediation within the League of Nations.

APPENDIX

CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE FOREIGN OFFICE RESPECTING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 23(h) OF THE HAGUE REGULATIONS CONCERNING LAND WARFARE

LETTER FROM THE PRESENT WRITER TO THE FOREIGN OFFICE

Whewell House, Cambridge,

28th February, 1911.

To

The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Sir,—

I venture to bring the following matter before your consideration:—

In the course of my recent studies I have been dealing with the laws and usages of war on land, and I have had to consider the interpretation of Article 23(h) of the Regulations attached to the Convention of 1907 relating to the Laws and Customs of war on land. I find that the interpretation prevailing among all continental and some English and American authorities is contrary to the old English rule, and I would respectfully ask to be informed of the view which His Majesty's Government place upon the article in question.

To give some idea as to how an interpretation of Article 23(h) contrary to the old English rule prevails generally, I will quote a number of French, German, English, and American writers, the works of whom I have at hand in my library, and I will also quote the German Weissbuch concerning the results of the second Hague Conference of 1907.

Bonfils, Manuel de droit international public, 5th ed. by Fauchille, 1908, discusses, on page 651, the doctrine which denies to an enemy subject any persona standi in judicio, but adds:—'… Article 23(h) décide qu'il est interdit de déclarer éteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice, les droits et actions des nationaux de la partie adverse.'

Politis, Professor of International Law in the University of Poitiers (France), in his report to the Institute of International Law, Session of Paris (1910), concerning Effets de la Guerre sur les Obligations Internationales et les Contrats privés, page 18, says:

'Un point hors de doute, c'est, que la guerre ne peut, ni par elle-même ni par la volonté des belligérants, affecter la validité ou l'exécution des contrats antérieurs. Cette règle fait désormais partie du droit positif. L'article 23(h) du nouveau Règlement de la Haye interdit formellement aux belligérants "de déclarer éteints, suspendus ou non recevables en justice les droits et actions des nationaux de la partie adverse."

'Cette formule condamne d'anciens usages conservés encore, en partie, dans certains pays. Elle proscrit d'abord tous les moyens—annulation ou confiscation—par lesquels on chercherait à atteindre, dans leur existence, les droits nés avant la guerre. Elle exclut, en second lieu, l'ancienne pratique qui interdisait aux particuliers ennemis l'accès des tribunaux. Elle prohibe, enfin, toutes les mesures législatives ou autres tendant à entraver au cours de la guerre l'exécution ou les effets utiles des obligations privées, notamment le cours des intérêts.

'Il y a là progrès incontestable. Et l'on doit être reconnaissant à la délégation allemande à la 2e Conférence de la paix de l'avoir provoqué.

'L'accueil empressé et unanime qu'a reçu cette heureuse initiative permet d'espérer que de nouveaux progrès pourront être réalisés dans cet ordre d'idées.

'On doit souhaiter que la disposition de l'article 23(h), étrangère à l'hypothèse de l'occupation du territoire ennemi, soit distraite du règlement de 1907 (comme les articles 57 à 60 l'ont été du Règlement de 1899) pour être mieux placée dans une convention nouvelle, où d'autres textes viendraient la compléter.'

Ullmann, Völkerrecht, 2nd ed. 1908, p. 474, says:—

'Auch der Rechtsverkehr wird durch den Ausbruch des Krieges nicht unterbrochen oder gehemmt. Die nach Landesrecht frueher uebliche zeitweise Aufhebung der Klagbarkeit vom Schuldverbindlichkeiten des Staates oder eines Angehörigen gegen Angehörige des Feindes ist durch Artikel 23(h) untersagt.'

Wehberg, Das Beuterecht im Land- und Seekriege, 1909, pp. 5 and 6 says:—

'Article 46 Absatz 2 bestimmt:—"Das Privateigentum darf nicht eingezogen werden." In konsequenter Durchführung dieses Satzes bestimmt der auf deutschen Antrag 1907 hinzugefügte Article 23(h):—"Untersagt ist die Aufhebung oder zeitweilige Ausserkraftsetzung der Rechte und Forderungen von Angehoerigen der Gegenpartei oder der Ausschliessung ihrer Klagbarkeit."'

Whittuck, International Documents, London 1908, Introduction p. xxvii, says—'In Article 23(h) it is prohibited to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the other belligerent which is a development of the principle that the private property of the subjects of a belligerent is not subject to confiscation. This new prohibition if accepted by this country would necessitate some changes in our municipal law.'

Holland, The Laws of War on Land, 1908, says on p. 5 that:—'Article 23(h) seems to require the Signatory Powers to the convention concerned to legislate for the abolition of an enemy's disability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.' (See also Holland, loco citato, p. 44, where he expresses his doubts concerning the interpretation of Article 23(h).)

Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents, Chicago 1908, recognises on page 210 the fact that according to Article 23(h) an alien enemy must now be allowed to sue in the courts of a belligerent, and Gregory, Professor in the University of Iowa, who reviews Bordwell's work in the American Journal of International Law, Volume 3 (1909), page 788, takes up the same standpoint.

The only author who interprets Article 23(h) in a different way is General Davis, who in his Elements of International Law, 3rd edition 1908, page 578, note 1, says:—

'It is more than probable that this humane and commendable purpose would fail of accomplishment if a military commander conceived it to be within his authority to suspend or nullify their operation, or to regard their application in certain cases as a matter falling within his administrative discretion. Especially is this true where a military officer refuses to receive well grounded complaints, or declines to receive demands for redress, in respect to the acts or conduct of the troops under his command, from persons subject to the jurisdiction of the enemy who find themselves, for the time being, in the territory which he holds in military occupation. To provide against such a contingency it was deemed wise to add an appropriate declaratory clause to the prohibition of Article 23.'

It is very unfortunate that the book of General Davis is not at all known on the Continent, and that therefore none of the continental authors have any knowledge of the fact that a divergent interpretation from their own of Article 23(h) is being preferred by an American author.

It is likewise very unfortunate that neither the English Bluebook on the Second Hague Peace Conference (see Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 4, 1907, page 104) nor the official minutes of the proceedings of the Conference, edited by the Dutch Government, give any such information concerning the construction of Article 23(h) as could assist a jurist in forming an opinion regarding the correct interpretation.

It is, however, of importance to take notice of the fact that Article 23(h) is an addition to Article 23 which was made on the proposition of Germany, and that Germany prefers an interpretation of Article 23(h) which would seem to coincide with the interpretation preferred by all the continental writers. This becomes clearly apparent from the German Weissbuch ueber die Ergebnisse der im Jahre 1907 in Haag abgehaltenen Friedensconferenz, which contains on page 7 the following:—

'Der Artikel 23 hat gleichfalls auf deutschen Antrag zwei wichtige Zusätze erhalten. Durch den ersten wird der Grundsatz der Unverletzlichkeit des Privateigenthumes auch auf dem Gebiete der Forderungsrechte anerkannt. Nach der Gesetzgebung einzelner Staaten soll nämlich der Krieg die Folge haben, dass die Schuldverbindlichkeiten des Staates oder seiner Angehörigen gegen Angehörige des Feindes aufgehoben oder zeitweilig ausser Kraft gesetzt oder wenigstens von der Klagbarkeit ausgeschlossen werden. Solche Vorschriften werden nun durch den Artikel 23 Abs. 1 unter h für unzulässig erklärt.'

However this may be, the details given above show sufficiently that a divergent interpretation of Article 23(h) from the old English rule is prevalent on the Continent, and is to some extent also accepted by English and American Authorities, and it is for this reason that I would ask whether His Majesty's Government consider that the old English rule is no longer in force.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) L. OPPENHEIM.