« 이전계속 »
Rahab and her household who had concealed his spies. In the wars of the Israelites no restrictions were placed on the slaughter of enemies unless for special reasons.
The Aryan invaders of India, at an early date that cannot be definitely fixed, placed important restrictions on the savagery of war. The laws of war in the Code of Manu provide
90. “Let no man engaged in combat smite his foe with sharp weapons concealed in wood, nor with arrows mischievously barbed, nor with poisoned arrows, nor with darts blazing with fire;
91. "Nor let him in a car or on horseback strike his enemy alighted on the ground; nor an effeminate man; nor one who sues for life with closed palms; nor one whose hair is loose and obstructs his sight; nor one who sits down fatigued; nor one who says 'I am thy captive';
92. “Nor one who sleeps; nor one who has lost his coat of nail; nor one who is naked; nor one who is disarmed; nor one who is a spectator, but not a combatant; nor one who is fighting with another man.
93. "Calling to mind the duty of honorable men, let him never slay one who has broken his weapon; nor one who is afflicted with private sorrow; nor one who has been grievously wounded; nor one who is terrified; nor one who turns his back.”
201. "Having conquered a country let him respect the deities adored in it and their virtuous priests; let him also distribute largesses to the people, and cause a full exemption from terror to be loudly proclaimed.
202. “When he has perfectly ascertained the conduct and intentions of all the vanquished, let him fix in that country a prince of the royal race and give him precise instructions.
203. “Let him establish the laws of the conquered nation as declared in their books; and let him gratify the new prince with gems and other precious gifts."
Some of the foregoing rules and restrictions will be recognized as corresponding with the Geneva and Hague Conventions so recently adopted and more recently so grossly violated. The provisions of these conventions are to be found in succeeding parts of this work. No such humane principles appear to have ever obtained in western Asia, and the present state of desolation in districts once highly cultured is due in main to the savagery of war. The religious principles of the
3 Joshua Ch. 5.
4 Code of Manu, Translation by Sir William Jones, $ 90-91-92-93-201-202203. Ch. 7. Evolution of Governments and Laws, pp. 1033-1036.
Greeks preserved most of their cities from annihilation but did not save them from the miseries of war. Though from the earliest times of which we have historical accounts there were numerous powerful nations in western Asia and on the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, which were accustomed to the use of letters, to trading with one another, and each of which had established governments and national personality, no attempt seems to have ever been made to develop anything approximating international law among them. Wars were not always waged with a purpose to exterminate the enemy but often to extort tribute or capture slaves. The Romans early adopted a wise and humane policy of binding their conquered foes to Rome by liberal treatment and mutually profitable dealings. This policy quite as much as Roman legions was the cause of the growth and solidity of the Republic. The Empire followed, uniting all the civilized parts of the known world east of Persia under one government. During its existence there was little room for international law, for one nation prescribed law for all the people.
MODERN CONCEPTION OF THE NATION That the land area of the world, except parts of Africa and small parts of Asia, is divided among nations with fixed territorial boundaries, each under a government responsible for its own acts and also for the conduct of its citizens and subjects, is now the accepted doctrine on which all international law is based. This preserves in all essential particulars the Greek conception of distinct individuality in the state with unity of political purpose and accountability, but without restriction as to extent or contiguity of territory. In the requirement of definiteness of territorial boundaries it perpetuates the theory of dominion established in feudal times, which based all governmental power on land tenure, the king being the uitimate owner of all, and those having local authority his tenants and subtenants. It also accords with the feudal system in allowing a nation to have remote and disconnected possessions. Whatever its form of government or the extent of its territory the corporate accountability of the state through its government is
as full as under either the Greek, the paternal, or the feudal theory of rulership. Within its dominions its authority is exclusive, except as special governmental functions may be granted or delegated by treaty to other nations. National entity is recognized by the community of nations in San Marino, with its twenty-three square miles of territory and 8200 people, as well as in Great Britain with colonies and dependencies on every continent. San Marino answers the description of the Greek city state, while the British Empire includes all races of people, in every stage of civilization, and living under the most diverse climatic and economic conditions. Between these, in varying extent and composition, are other firmly organized nations, which separately or in combination assume rulership of the whole world. Much of Africa and parts of Asia are not yet subjected to orderly government, but the European States have apportioned these parts among themselves, denominating large parts of Africa as spheres of influence, for the government of which they do not assume full responsibility.
Though its nations dominate so much of the lands of other continents and of the remote islands, Europe's internal divisions and boundaries are still in a state of change and transition. Most great modern wars have been waged by European nations against each other, to gratify the ambitions of rulers and commercial and industrial leaders for extended mastery. The great war just ended is no exception. It was instituted without any necessity or justification, to further the ambitions of military rulers and the classes of their subjects which expected to derive especial advantage from aggressive warfare. The result has been the reverse of that anticipated by its authors. This result has been achieved by a world-wide combination of forces. This combination was possible mainly hecause the sense of humanity was shocked by the ruthless slaughter of people who had done nothing to warrant attacks on them, and by the disregard of the rules adopted at the Hague Conference to mitigate the horrors and barbarities of war. A league including nearly all the great nations of the world was formed to overthrow the Central Powers. The result has been more far-reaching than was anticipated. The Russian despotism,
which was fighting in alliance with the popular governments of western Europe, was the first to fall, and the vast empire which included so large a part of Europe and Asia is now in such a condition of disorganization, turmoil, and suffering, as usually attends the overthrow of a long established despotism. How many separate states will be formed from its fragments cannot yet be foretold, but it now seems probable that it will be divided into states more nearly corresponding in size to the other nations of Europe. The Empire of the Turks, which has been waning for a century, is now about to be broken up, and the Armenians and other subject people who have endured its tyrannies and persecutions will be liberated and placed under the protection of the League of Nations. The dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary, which for centuries has blocked the progress of free institutions in central Europe, is disrupted, and the people it has ruled so long are organizing new governments according with racial lines. Germany, most powerful and efficiently organized for war of all the nations of the world, with a population mainly homogeneous, is now in a state bordering on anarchy. Famine threatens its people, and to the losses occasioned by war are added the burdens of indebtedness and of payment of compensation for the destruction wrought in the territories occupied by them and reached by their guns and air crafts. Out of the wrecks of these empires the ancient Polish state, which had been partitioned among these despotisms in 1795 and prior thereto, is again taking form and asking for its place among the nations. The Czechs and Slovaks are forming a new state and the JugoSlavs are seeking a reconstruction along racial lines. Many conflicting claims and projects are presented which imperatively demand concert of action by the nations that have not been broken up by the war to aid in the restoration of order in the territory formerly ruled by these disrupted governments. The peace conference has to deal with conditions of disorganization where at the beginning of the war were strongly centralized governments. The principles on which the conference is proceeding render it impossible to settle the status of all the disorganized territories. Questions with reference to the au
tonomy of the different parts of each of the disrupted empires may, and probably will, require a long process of settlement involving the submission to the people of many localities of questions as to their political affiliations and territorial combinations. For a time it may require a large police force to preserve the peace until fair and just settlements of the controversies can be arrived at. The situation is far different from that presented to the Congress of Vienna in 1814 and 1815, when the map of Europe was redrawn in accordance with the views of triumphant monarchs. There were then no troublesome questions as to the rights and preferences of the people of the various districts. The interests of rulers and the balance of power were the only considerations having weight. The principle of despotic government had been sustained through the wars, and the so-called Holy Alliance was formed to perpetuate it. The problem now is one of reorganization in accordance with higher ideals. The rulers of Europe are no longer either the dominant force in the conference or their claims a subject of consideration. The great problem is to organize Europe in the manner best calculated to preserve harmony and good relations between the states and peace and prosperity among the people. The League of Nations appears to be an indispensable agency to complete the work of making a real treaty of peace. The people of the separate districts which have no clearly defined relation to any established government require the protection of a supervising organization until such time as their status can be settled in accordance with their wishes, or at least the wishes of a majority of them. Settlement of all the questions of boundary in the manner of the Congress of Vienna would doubtless result in strife and turmoil for an indefinite period. Adjustments must accord with the wishes of the people concerned in order to promote permanent good relations. There is also need of greatly increased freedom of commercial intercourse between the small states of continental Europe, and of organizations calculated to stimulate friendly relations among the people of all of them.
The number of nations now mutually recognizing the sovereign rights of each other is a few more than of the states which