The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1915. INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 24, 29 January 1915, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1915. INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Discussing Germany's many breaches of the rules of civilised nations in warfare the Lyttelton times At the Hague Convention a declaration was framed forbidding the dropping of bombs from the air, but as only Britain and Belgium were prepared to agree to it the prohibition does not apply in this war, and consequently more than one military writer has been tempted to say that tlie Germans in this respect have shown no disregard of international law or the usages of nations. Even if there were a definite rule on the subject, and even if. Germany had agreed to it, of course, it would not follow that our enemies would adhere to it. The penalty that attaches to. Ineaches of international law is a ( vague one. The guardians of the ( law, are the neutral nations, and the offenders should be called to account by the neutral nations, but in this, war there is no neutral Power suffi-j ciently strong or sufficiently concerned to interfere merely because international law has been disregarded. It is of interest, however, to remember that aircraft are not exempt from the laws governing civilised warfare. High German authority may be quoted on that issue. The question of floating mines was under discussion at the Hague Convention, and Gerniany had constituted herself the champion of neutrals for the time being, another point worth remembering, by the way, just now, when neutral shipping is being destroyed by floating mines scattered broadcast by the Germans. "We are not of the opinion," said Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, the chief German delegate, "that what is not expressly forbidden is permitted." Then, by way of laying down a guiding principle, he added that military operations were not governed solely by international law, but by conscience, common-sense and the sense of duty imposed by principles of humanity. Though there is no definite rule on the subject of air-

craft, therefore, we must assume that these craft are subject to the, general principles stated so clearly by the eminent German diplomatist.! Broadly speaking, the operations of, aircraft are limited by the "laws of humanity 'and the requirements of the public conscience," but specifically they are required to refrain from de-, stroying life or property, unless the act is "imperatively demanded by military necessity." Moreover, there are rules of international law govern-, ing the bombardment of towns, and a bombardment is the same in prin-

ciple, whether the bombs are dropped from Zeppelins or thrown by siege guns. It is expressly forbidden to bombard an undefended town, and if bombardment is "imperatively demanded by military necessity" notice must be given to the inhabitants. It is futile, we know, to discuss whether the German methods of conducting the war are in accord with the customs of civilised peoples or not, but since the point has been raised it is jnst as well to make it clear, once for all, that the Zeppelin raid on undefended English towns was a- flagrant breach of the law of nations. j