"legislation." It seems, therefore, that this side of the subject requires discussion. Without wishing to belittle work of the type in question, it may certainly be said that the discussion of anything more than the barest generalities of the subject can only be time and effort wasted. A new Arm requires to work out its own salvation in warfare, and the machine which has won for itself and mankind the freedom of the air is not to have its future proscribed or fettered by the scratchings of an unofficial quill.
§ 103. Belligerent Aircraft and the Rights and Obligations of Neutrals. A question which appears likely to lead to great trouble in practice is the propriety of belligerent aircraft operating over the territory of a neutral Power. Without discussing such academic subjects as the territorial sovereignty of the air, it seems clear that eventually neither belligerent can be prevented from passing over neutral territory except by the air forces and counter-air forces of the neutral Power in question. If such Power should elect not to use his forces to prevent such violation of his territorial air, it will be impossible in practice to make him do so or hold him responsible. Beyond this, if the neutral Power should subsequently make claim against a belligerent for using his air, it is difficult to see how any such claim could have more ground than an ordinary civil claim for trespass, in which the only admissible basis of an award is for damage done. If the aircraft has flown at reasonable altitude and has done no injury by dropping anything, or by gun-fire, it is difficult to see how any claim could be substantiated. If the neutral Power should elect to employ his aircraft and counter aircraft artillery to assert a presumed right to his territorial air, he not only puts himself to very considerable expense and inconvenience, but at the best
148
