Some Questions of International Law. wireless telegraphy had not been "foreseen by existing conventions" seemed to the Rus sian Government to afford ample justification foi such an unwarranted attack upon the rights of neutral individuals. In other words the presumption is assumed to be in favor of the rights of belligerents and against the rights of neutrals—a total misconception and reversal of one of the fundamental principles of modern International Law. Under exist ing law it would as a matter of fact require an International Convention to prohibit, or even to restrict, the use of wireless teleg raphy on the high seas or in neutral terri tory. In view of their ever-growing importance, it is somewhat surprising to note that the status of war correspondents is one which is seldom even touched upon by publicists on International Law.1 The "Instructions for the Armies of the Government of the United States in the Field, prepared by Dr. Fran cis Lieber and issued by the Secretary of War in April], 1863, declare that "citizens vho accompany an army for whatever pur pose, such as sutlers, editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if captured, may be 1 The only publicists amongst those consulted by the writer who even refer to the status of war correspondents arc Bluntschli (§§594-96 and notes), Hall (note on p. 404 of 3d ed.), and Law rence (p. 336). Bluntschli says that a military occupanl» (or invader) has the "right to detain per sons, who, without belonging to the army and exercising pacific functions, are dangerous to the army of occupation," amongst whom he includes journalists whose opinions are hostile. He is also of the opinion that non-combatants, c. g., news paper correspondents, contractors, etc., attached to an army which has surrendered or to troops which have been captured, may be made prison ers at least provisionally, but he thinks they ought not to be retained as prisoners of war un less "their presence in the camp of the enemy constitutes a support to the latter or a danger to the Power which has captured them." Hall seems to think that newspaper correspondents should only be detained for special reasons. Lawrence suggests that "probably the worst that could hap pen to them if captured in civilized warfare would be expulsion from the lines of the captors."
597
tr.ade prisoners of war, and be detained as such.2 This provision was incorporated in to the "Rules of Military Warfare" adopted by the Brussels Conference of 1874.* The Code adopted by the Institute of Interna tional Law at its Oxford session in 1880 merely declares in favor of detention in case of necessity. It provides that "persons who follow an army without forming part of it, such as correspondents of newspapers, sut lers, contractors, etc., on falling into the power of the enemy, can only be detained for so long a time as may be required by strict military necessity."4 The "Regulations Re specting the Laws and Customs of War on Land" adopted by the Hague Conference in 1899, declare that "individuals which followan army without directly belonging to it—such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers and contractors—who fall into the enemy's hands, and whom the latter see fit to detain, have a right to be treated as pris oners of war, provided they can produce a certificate from the military authorities of the army which they were accompanying."5 It will thus be seen that, according to ex isting international practice, the severest treatment which can possibly be meted ont to a war correspondent captured on belligerent
- Section III., §50 of the "Instructions." For
the text of these Instructions, see e. g.. the Ap pendices to Tucker and Wilson's International Lute and Snow's Cases. s " Persons in the vicinity of armies, but who do not directly form part of them, such as corres pondents, newspaper reporters, vivandiers, con tractors, etc., may also be made prisoners of war. These persons should, however, be furnished with a permit, issued by a competent authority, as well as with a certificate of identity." Art. 34 of the Rules of the Brussels Conference. For the Eng lish text, see App. III. to Tucker and Wilson. 4 Pt. II., §22, of Hall's translation of the Oxford Code. For text, see App. II. in Wilson and Tucker. Cf. §21, of translation in App. to Snow's Cases. For the French text of the Oxford Code, see Tableau Générale de l'Institut de Droit Int., pp. 173-190' Art. 13. See Holls Peace Conference, 148.
