Repository: UIHistories Project: War Publications - WWI Compilation 1923 - Article 14 [PAGE 25]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

justice to hold the community responsible and subject it to punishmeat; and it is safe to say that the Hague Conference never intended to sanction the application of the principle of collective responsi1 bility and punishment in such cases. The German manual does not deal with the subject of collective tines further than to say that they are the most effective means of 2 insuring the obedience of the inhabitants of occupied territory. It also remarks that they were frequently employed by the Germans during the Franco-German war of 1870-71, and the manual naturally attempts to defend the German practice. As is well known, huge fines were laid on many towns, cities, departments, and communes of France. The enormity of the amounts exacted and their disproportion to the offenses alleged are evidence enough that in many cases they were nothing more than contributions exacted under the guise of fines, and were imposed not as a punitive measure but merely for 3 the enrichment of the military occupant. The Germans even pushed the theory of collective responsibility to the length of fining remote communes, from which offenders originally came, for acts committed by them in other distant communes in the occupied portion of 4 France. This iniquitous theory of collective punishment is defended by the Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege and by most German writers on international law, mainly on the ground that it was effective in pre5 venting a repetition of the acts complained of. Leuder and the authors of the German manual find a justification also in the "embit6 tered character which the war took on during its later stages." Regarding the French complaint that the fines were in many cases grossly excessive and out of all proportion to the gravity of the offenses alleged, Leuder remarks that the promptness with which they were paid is evidence enough that they were "in truth not too exor7 bitant." Leuder even goes to the length of asserting that a community may be fined for the continued persistence of the inhabitants in keeping up a futile struggle (durch frivolfortgesetze Kriege). The 25 franc per capita fine levied in 1870 on all the inhabitants of the occupied regions of France for the purpose of breaking their spirit of 8 resistance was therefore a justifiable measure. Such is the theory of the German manual and of German writers regarding collective punishments. It is criticized by practically every

iCompare Lawrence, op. cit., p. 447: Spaight, op. cit c 408; Despagnet, Cours de Droit International tecs. 587-588; Bordwell, "Law of tfar?' p. 317; and N? \ ** »rou International. Vol. I I I . D. 429. 'Morgan, p. 178. * •Compare Bonfilt Manuel de Droit International, tec 1219 T k., • . * ^ I rm r cticc o f im-71 and given many detail, a. to the i m p o s t o f fines by t L G e r m cZrr?™^ *« & ™ P J Y Journal of International Law, July, 1917, pp/512ff. » n s , in an article in the American T h e text of the order putting into effect this extraordinarv *k~s_, t 1n 1 found in the Revue de hroit International et de JffSto^2om£Z °v ' f " * ™ responsibility may be •See the defense by Loening in an article in the Revue de DroWZZ^' 5 ' *S*£; , . . 01 In Vol. V, pn. 77ff. ™ *' t* ' ^rnattonal et de Legislation Com parte. •Leuder in Holtzendorfi"s Handbuch des Vblkerrechts, Vol. IV n ?n«. «u^ ,,<> ,,»„ p 5U ,io Carpcntier, p. 141. ' ' * *» » «ec. 112, note!4M; organ, p.178; 7 0/>. cit., p. 5 0 A *Ioid., pp. 505 and 510. For a criticism of this extraordinary cont*n*;«„ « , , on International Law," p. 251. quinary contention see WestJake, "Collected papers

24