No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Destruction of Towns and of Institutions Devoted to Religion, Education, Science and Art, as Punitive Measures
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
With the possible exception of the violation of Belgian neutrality, no acts have provoked wider criticism than the burning of Louvain with its university, its cathedral, its library, including its books, manuscripts and scientific collections, the partial destruction of the cathedrals of Rhcims and Soissons, the alleged “massacre” at Aerschot, the “sacking” of Senlis, including the partial destruction of its cathedral, and the “atrocities” at Linsmeau, Termonde and Orsmael. The British Prime Minister, in his Guildhall speech of September 4th, characterized the burning of Louvain as “the greatest crime committed against civilization and culture since the Thirty Years War—a shameless holocaust of irreparable treasures lit up by blind barbarian vengeance.” Sir Frederick Pollock also declared that “it exceeded in horror and calculated wickedness any military crime committed since the Thirty Years War.” The London Times denounced it as “an atrocious act without a parallel even in the Dark Ages and one which would turn the hands of every civilized nation against the Germans.” These expressions fairly represent the opinion of the English and, to a large degree, the American public in regard to the character of the act.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1915
References
89 London Times, September 5, 1914.
90 Letter to the Times, August 30, 1914.
91 “Case of Belgium,” p. 43.
92 It is refreshing to know that this act was disapproved by General Lee. Gordon, Reminiscences, p. 305.
93 Compare Bordwell, Law of War, p. 63. The whole matter is fully examined in Lawrence’s Wheaton, Pt. IV, Ch. II.
94 “This act,” observes Riviér, Vol. II, p. 320, “was unworthy of the two European nations which everybody in the Orient considered as the advance guard of civilization and progress. The contents of the palace, statuary, vases, jewelry, and works of art, were seized before the destruction, and a joint commission was appointed to divido the choicest objects between Queen Victoria and Napoleon III. The proceeds from the sale of other objects were divided among the soldiers, the share of each amounting to about 100 francs.” Pradier-Fodéré, Vol. VI, p. 1107; Nys, Droit International, Vol. III, p. 326.
95 Gordon, Reminiscences, p. 302.
96 Bolton King, History of Italian Unity, Vol. I, p. 344.
97 Bonfils, sec. 1085, n. 2, and Hozier, The Franco-Prussian War, Vol. II, p. 71. Speaking of the destruction of the Strassburg library, Spaight (p. 186) remarks that “it is hardly a fanciful anticipation to say that this great world loss will make the war of 1870–71 memorable when the politics that led to it and the names of the battles and leaders are forgotten.” Sir Henry Hozier, historian of the war, says that “since the apochryphal burning of the library of Alexandria, perhaps no equally irreparable loss has occurred.” The German justification for the bombardment of the Cathedral of Strassburg was that the French had installed on the tower an observatory for the artillery officers. Revue de Droit Int. et. de Lég. Comp., Vol. III, p. 303.
98 Bonfils, sec. 1085, n. 2.
99 Spaight, pp. 181, 186; and Bonfils, sec. 1085, n. 2.
100 Nys, Droit International, Vol. III, p. 326.
101 P. 137.
102 See on this point Bordwell, The Law of War, pp. 94, 148; and Spaight, pp. 127, 352, 377. The legal justification depends on whether the destruction of the railroads was the act of non-combatants, which is not apparent from the accounts, or of the organized military forces of the Boers. In the latter case there was no justification for the punishment.
108 Cf. Merignhac, p. 264; Oppenheim, Vol. II, p. 175; Hall, sec. 156; Bonfils, sec. 1218; Riviér, Vol. II, p. 301; Spaight, p. 113; Halleck, Elements, p. 210; Bordwell, p. 317; Despagnet, sec. 577; Bluntschli, sec. 643 bis; Bentwich, War and Private Property, p. 37.
104 Scott, Texts, p. 227.
105 Sec. 135.
106 Arts. 84–86. See also Westlake, Pt. II, pp. 113, 115; Bordwell, p. 316; Merignhac, Lois et Coutumes, p. 212; Despagnet, sees. 543, 577; Holland, Laws of War, p. 61. Compare also, “The Instructions for the Government of the United States Armies,” Art. 28, and the French manual for the use of officers, p. 25.
107 Article 22, Annex to the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War.
108 Article 23.
109 Article 27.
110 Weekly edition, September 25, 1914.
111 Droit International Godifié, Tr. by Lardy, sec. 644.
112 Ibid., sec. 648; cf. also sees. 34–36 of Lieber’s “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States.”
113 Compare Spaight, p. 74, and Wheaton, Pt. IV, Ch. II.
114 Op. cit., p. 113.
115 For the enunciation of this doctrine see Von Clausewitz, On War, English translation by Graham; Leuder in Holtzendorff, Handbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. IV, sees. 65–66; Ullmann, Völkerrecht, sec. 144; Liszt, Das Völkerrecht, sec. 39; and Kluber, Droit des Gens, sec. 245. For criticism of the doctrine, see Westlake, International Law,—War, p. 115; Merignhac, Lois el Coutumes, p. 143; Nys, Droit International, Vol. IIII, p. 203; Pradier-Fodéré, Traitt, sec. 2740; Pillet, Lois de la Guerre, sec. 59; Bordwell, Law of War, p. 5; Holland, The Law of War on Land, p. 13. This doctrine is also laid down in the official Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege prepared by the Prussian general staff in 1902. Merignhac severely criticises this publication for the extreme views of military necessity which it upholds and for its scant allusions to the Hague conventions, the binding force of which it apparently ignores. See his Les Lois de la Guerre Continental Suivant le Grande Etat major Allemand.
116 Droit International Codifié, tr. by Lardy, sec. 549.
117 Droit International Codifié, tr. by Lardy, sec. 519.
118 Ibid., sec. 534.
119 A. Pearce Higgins, The Binding Force of International Law, p. 36.