22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 September 2021
In view of the increased interest in the problem of finding a legal definition for “war” or the “state of war” it seems worth while to consider briefly the hitherto rather neglected contributions to the subject by American and English courts. The problem of defining war has been effectively treated from several other viewpoints, but these English and American cases are worth examination for the further light they may shed on the fundamental questions involved. The fact that these decisions were in part prompted by the necessity of interpreting the phrase “war” or “state of war” in domestic statutes and that in all cases it is merely the voice of a national court speaking, need not detract from the value of the survey. The basis upon which judgment was rendered in most cases was (or at least was asserted to be) that of the law of nations, and, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, the decisions of national courts “show how the law of nations, in a given case, is understood in that country.”
1 See McNair, A. D., “The Legal Meaning of War and the Relation of War to Reprisals,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. XI (1926), p. 29;Google Scholar Eagleton, Clyde, “The Attempt to Define War,” International Conciliation, No. 291 (June, 1933)Google Scholar; Hindmarsh, A. E., Force in Peace (Cambridge, Mass., 1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baty, Thomas, “Abuse of Terms: ‘Recognition,’ ‘War,’” this JOURNAL, Vol. 30 (1936), p. 377 Google Scholar; Wilson, G. G., “The Use of Force and War,” ibid., Vol. 26 (1932), p. 328 Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “When Does War Exist?” ibid., p. 362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 9 Cranch 191 (1815).
3 For a compilation of the definitions given by some of the leading writers, see Eagleton, op. cit., and Arnold Cuten, La Notion de Guerre permise (Paris, 1931), Chap. I.
4 See Coleman Phillipson, The Termination of War and Treaties of Peace (London, 1916).
5 Miller v. The Resolution, 2 Dall. 1 (1781).
6 Potts v. Bell, 101 Reprint 1540, 3 B. & P. 191 (1800).
7 Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp 316, 12 Reprint 340 (1830).
8 Janson v. Driefontein Consolidated Mines, Ltd., L. R., Appeal Cases (1902), 484.
9 The Herstelder,1 C. Rob.113,165 Reprint 116 (1799).
10 The Boedes Lust, 5 C. Rob.233,165 Reprint 759 (1804).
11 The Fortuna, 1 Edw.56,165 Reprint 1031 (1809).
12 The Pedro,175 U. S. 354; The Rita, 87 Fed. 925; The Buena Ventura, 175 U. S. 354(1899).
13 With regard to the magnitude of the struggle, it should be pointed out that the United States took 84 French vessels in this period. J. P. Bassett, Short History of the United States (New York, 1927), pp. 279–281.
14 Bas v. Tingy, 4 Dall. 42-44 (1800).
15 Talbot t». Seeman, 1 Cranch 1 (1801).
16 For text of the treaty see Malloy, Treaties of the U. S. (Washington, 1910), p. 497. For details of the negotiations see Moore’s Int. Law Digest, Vol. V, pp. 601–613; Vol. VII, pp. 155–158.
17 Gray, Adm'r., e. U. S., 21 Ct. Claims 340 (1886).
18 Hooper, Adm'r., v. U. S., 22 Ct. Claims 402 (1887).
19 Cushing, Adm'r., v. U. S., 22 Ct. Claims 1 (1886).
20 Supra, p. 645.
21 See Gray, Adm’r., v. U. S., 21 Ct. Claims 340–346.
22 Ibid.
23 The Schooner Endeavor, 44 Ct. Claims 242 (1909).
24 See SirMaurice, John F., Hostilities without Declaration of War (1700–1870) (London, 1883)Google Scholar.
25 Fenwick, International Law, p. 421; Stowell, International Law, p. 465.
26 The writer prefers to use the term “reprisals” in the former sense and the term “acts of reprisal” to indicate specific measures taken in response to objectionable conduct by another state. For discussion of the meaning of “reprisals” see Hyde, International Law, Vol. II, pp. 172–179; Oppenheim (3rd ed.), Vol. II, p. 40.
27 Perrin v. United States, 4 Ct. Claims 643 (1868).
28 Ibid.
29 Bishop v. Jones & Petty, 28 Tex. 294 (1886).
30 People v. McLeod, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 377 (1841).
31 Aree «. Texas, 202 S. W. 292 (1918).
32 Hamilton v. M'Claughry, 136 Fed. 445-450 (1905).
33 Supra, p. 648.
34 The Nayade, 4 C. Rob. 251, 165 Reprint 602 (1802).
35 The Amy Warwick,1 Fed. Cas. No. 341 (1862).
36 United States v. Smith, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16432 (1806).
37 See G. G. Wilson, loc. cit. Lord Stowell in The Eliza Ann, 165 Reprint 1298 (1813), said: “A declaration of war by one country only is not a mere… challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other. It proves the existence of actual hostilities on one side at least, and puts the other party into a state of war also …”
38 The Ekaterinoslav, Takahashi, Russo-Japanese War Cases, p. 582. See also, The Argun, p.583, and The Mukden, p. 601.
39 The Maria Magdelena, 1 H. & M. 247, 165 Reprint 57 (1779).
40 Potts v. Bell, 3 B. & P. 191.
41 Hagedorn v. Bell, 1 M. & S. 459, 105 Reprint 168 (1813).
42 Dole v. Ins. Company, 51 Me. 465 (1862).
43 Moore, Int. Law Digest, Vol. VII, p. 154; Fenwick, op. cit., pp. 428-429.
44 The Parkhill, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10, 755a (1861).
45 Planter’s Bank v. St. John, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,208 (1869).
46 Baker v. Gordon, 23 Ind. 204; see also The Chapman, Fed. Cas. No. 2,602 (1864).
47 Arce v. Texas, 202 S. W. 292; supra, p. 651.
48 Lewis v. Preston Ludwig, 46 Tenn. 368 (1869).
49 Sutton v. Tiller, 46 Tenn. 593 (1869); see also Kneeland-Bigelow v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 207 Mich. 546 (1919).
50 The Pelican, 165 Reprint 1160 (1809); seealso The Hoop, 1 C. Rob. 196 (1799), and Blackburn v. Thompson, 3 Cap. 66.
51 United States v. The Tropic Wind, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16, 541a (1861); Coleman v. Tennessee, 27 U. S. 517.
52 Sutton v. Tiller, 46 Tenn. 593 (1869); see also Kneeland-Bigelow v. Michigan Central R. R. Co., 207 Mich. 546 (1919).
53 The Teutonia, 4 P. C. 171 (1870).
54 Clyde Eagleton, op. eit., p. 38
