Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-s9k8s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-03T10:47:19.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is the Wearing of the Enemy’s Uniform a Violation of the Laws of War?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Valentine Jobst
Valentine Jobst*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The above question has been raised in the present European conflict, particularly in connection with the use of parachute troops. At the time of the German invasion of France and the Low Countries, many of the German parachute troops who landed behind the Allied lines in those countries and there proceeded to destroy important military objectives or to seize and hold them until joined by reinforcements, allegedly wore Belgian or Netherland uniforms.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1941 , pp. 435 - 442
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Not only Allied uniforms, but also civilian clothes, police and postal uniforms, women’s dresses, and the garb of nuns and Red Cross nurses are alleged to have been worn by German parachutists. See New York Times, May 14, 1940, p. 10, and May 15, 1940, p. 4.

2 New York Times, May 14, 1940, p. 10. See also ibid., May 17, 1940, p. 3.

3 Ibid. Feb. 15, 1941, p. 1, and Feb. 16, 1941, p. 1.

4 Ibid. The Rome radio is quoted as saying that, “All had uniforms of khaki, aviation helmets, and Italian money.” Chicago Daily Tribune, Feb. 15, 1941, p. 4.

5 New York Times, Feb. 16, 1941, p. 2.

5a See Chicago Daily Tribune, May 21, 1941, p. 1, and June 11, 1941, p. 1.

6 Annex to Hague Convention II of 1899 and IV of 1907, Art. I. Scott, The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (1915), p. 107.

7 “A belligerent, besides having the rights over his enemy which flow directly from the right to attack, possesses also the right of punishing persons who have violated the laws of war, if they afterwards fall into his hands. . . . ” Hall, A Treatise on International Law (8th ed., 1924), p. 495. See also, Oppenheim, International Law, II (5th ed., 1935), pp. 452–456; U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, Sec. 366 ff.

8 There appear to have been relatively few instances of use by belligerents of enemy uniforms during the World War of 1914–1918. In one such instance some Austrian troops were reported to have attacked in Italian gear or uniforms and to have called out in Italian to their Italian opponents to cease firing. The Italian Government issued orders that enemy prisoners found with Italian insignia should be executed. 45 Journal du Droit International (1918), p. 438. Strupp refers to certain French officers having crossed the border in German uniforms at the beginning of the war. Strupp, Das Internationale Landkriegsrecht (1914), p. 73. Cf. E. Müller-Meiningen, Der Weltkrieg 1914–16 und der “ Zusammenbruch des Völkerrechts” (1915), p. 292. For instances of use of enemy uniforms in the American Civil, Russo-Turkish, and Anglo-Boer wars, see Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911), pp. 106–110.

9 Scott, op. cit., p. 116.

10 Oppenheim, op. cit., II, p. 341.

11 U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, Sec. 196.

12 See, e.g., Bluntschli, Das Moderns Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staten (1872), No. 565; Bordwell, The Law of War between Belligerents (1908), p. 283; Calvo, Le Droit International Théorique et Pratique (5th ed., 1896), IV, No. 2106; De Olivart, Tratado de Derecho Internacional Público (4th ed., 1903), III, p. 89 and n. 14; Despagnet, Cows de Droit International Public (3d ed., 1905), p. 648 (although he condemns such use of enemy uniforms “in principle”); Geffcken in Heffter, Le Droit International de l’Europe (4th Fr. ed., 1883), pp. 283–284, n. 10 (apparently); Hall, A Treatise on International Law (4th ed., 1895), No. 187; Longuet, Le Droit Actuel de la Guerre Terrestre (1901), No. 54; Luca, Manuel de Droit International à l’Usage des Officiers (1911), p. 52; Martens, Traité de Droit International (Léo trans., 1887), p. 218; Olivi, Manuale di Diritto Internazionale Pubblico e Privato (2d ed., 1911), p. 546; Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law (3d ed., 1885), III, p. 155; Pillet, Lei Lois Actuelles de la Guerre (1901), p. 95; Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens (1896), II, No. 187; Taylor, A Treatise on International Public Law (1901), No. 488; Westlake, International Law (1907), II, pp. 72-74.

13 E.g., Oppenheim states: “Article 23 (f) of the Hague Regulations does not prohibit their use [i.e., the use of the national flag, military ensigns or uniforms of the enemy] without qualification, but only their improper use, thus leaving the question open, what uses are proper and what are not. Those who have hitherto taught the admissibility of the use of these symbols outside actual fighting can correctly maintain that this article does not prohibit it.” Op. cit., II, p. 341. Cf. Hershey, The Essentials of International Public Law and Organization (Rev. ed., 1927), p. 597, n. 41. “Whether the enemy flag can be displayed and his uniform worn to effect an advance or to withdraw is unsettled.” U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, Sec. 196.

14 Use of enemy uniforms under circumstances of absolute necessity and without any intention to deceive is, of course, an entirely different matter. In such cases there will presumably be no hesitancy in meeting the requirement that enemy insignia be removed and replaced with marks designed to distinguish the wearers from enemy troops. Cf. Phillipson, International Law and the Great War (1915), pp. 207–208.

15 See, e.g., Accioly, Tratado de Direito Internacional Publico, III (1935), No. 1576; Acollas, Le Droit de la Guerre (1888), p. 55; Barclay, Law and Usage of War (1914), pp. 136-137; Bry, Précis Élémentaire de Droit International Public (5th ed., 1906), No. 389; de Bustamente y Sirven, Droit International Public, IV (1937), No. 1053; Davis, Outlines of International Law (1887), p. 222; Duplessix, La Loi des Nations (1906), p. 179; Fauchille, Traité, de Droit International Public, II (1921), No. 1087; Fiore, International Law Codified (Borchard trans., 1918), Nos. 1538–1539; Gemma, Appunti di Diritto Internazionale, pp. 306–307; Guelle, Précis des Lois de la Guerre (1884), pp. 104–106; Holland, The Laws of War on Land (1908), No. 79 (apparently); Hyde, International Law (1922), II, No. 659; Kunz, Kriegsrecht und Neutralitätsrecht (1935), p. 82 and n. 87; Laurentie, Les Lois de la Guerre (1917), pp. 26–27; Lawrence, The Principles of International Law (4th ed., 1911), No. 207; Lueder in Holtzendorff, Handbuck des Völkerrechts, IV (1889), p. 458; Merignhac, Les Lois et Coutumes de la Guerre sur Terre (1903), No. 89; Möller, International Law in Peace and War (1935), p. 180 and n. 6; Phillipson, International Law and the Great War (1915), pp. 207–208; Piédelièvre, Précis de Droit International Public ou Droit des Gens (1895), II, No. 883; Pradier-Fodéré, Traité de Droit International Public (1894), VI, No. 2760; Risley, The Law of War (1897), p. 120 (apparently); Rolin, Le Droit Moderne de la Guerre (1920), I, pp. 329–330 (apparently); Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911), pp. 105–106 (thinks, however, Hague Regulations left matter undecided); Strupp, Das Internationale Landkriegsrecht (1914), p. 73; Vicuña, Derecho Internacional en Tiempo de Guerra (2d ed., 1910), p. 130; Zorn, Das Kriegsrecht zu Lande (1906), pp. 129–133.

15 E.g., Pillet, La Guerre Actuelle et le Droit des Gens (1916), p. 86.

17 Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege (1902), p. 24. See U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, Sec. 196.

18 Actes de la Conference de Bruxelles de 1874 (Paris, 1874), p. 5.

19 Ibid., p. 9.

20 Ibid., p. 54. (Annexe No. I.)

21 Actes de la Conference de Bruxelles de 1874 (Paris, 1874), p. 41.

22 These provisions finally were incorporated in Article 13, which provided in part: “D’aprés ce principe, sont notamment interdits: . . . f. L’abus du pavilion parlementaire, du pavilion national ou des insignes militaires et de l’uniforme de I’ennemi, ainsi que des signes distinctifs de la convention de Geneve.”

23 According to M. Rolin’s report to the conference, “the new Articles 22, 23 and 24 correspond exactly, aside from some changes of wording, to Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Declaration of Brussels.” Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, The Conference of 1899, p. 58. It may be noted that, in the English translation of the proceedings, the texts of Article 13 (f) of the Declaration of Brussels and 23 (f) of the draft adopted on first reading by the second subcommission of the second commission are identical; both read “making improper use of.” Ibid., p. 567.

24 See preceding note. It may also be pointed out that obviously the words d’user (to make use of) could not have been used alone, so long as reference is made in the paragraph not only to enemy uniforms and insignia, but also to flags of truce and the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention. One must prohibit either “use . . . with a view to deceiving the enemy,” or else “improper use” or “abuse.”

25 Article 23 (f) was not essentially altered at the Hague Conference of 1907, and the proceedings of that conference reveal nothing which would add to or alter the above discussion.

26 Cf. Hyde, International Law, II, No. 659.

27 This is, of course, significant not only because it helps to clarify what is meant by “improper use “ in the Hague Regulations, but also because, due to the solidarity clause in the Hague Conventions, the Regulations as such are usually not in force in any war of major proportions.

28 Note 15, supra.

29 For a good review of the matter of the use of ruses and stratagems as distinguished from perfidious methods, see Nys, Le Droit International (1906), III, pp. 252-256. See, also, Spaight, War Rights on Land, pp. 152-156.

30 International Law (5th ed.), II, p. 342.

31 See text supra, at points covered in notes 18, 19, 20, and 21 ante.

32 “Les uniformes et les insignes, destinés à éviter de cruelles méprises, présentent un caractère essentiellement conventionnel. Celui qui les revêt ou qui les arbore déclare par ce fait matériel, qu’il appartient à telle ou telle armée. Une fausse déclaration, faite sous cette forme, doit être assimilée à la violation de la parole donée: les resultats sont les mêmes; l’emploi des uniformes ou drapeaux de l’ennemi constitue une véritable perfidie.’’ Fauchille, Traité de Droit International Public, II, No. 1087. Cf. Piédelièvre, op. cit.

33 Hyde, op. cit., II, No. 659. One might point out, too, the impracticability and absurdity of a rule which would permit the use of enemy uniforms prior to combat, but would require troops to divest themselves thereof at the moment of firing the first shot. Cf. Guelle, op. cit.

34 Thus the German Government appears to have confined itself to asserting that its parachute troops in fact wore a uniform which was suited to their type of work, which was well known and had been seen by military attachés in Berlin, and which was not to be confused with civilian clothes or the uniform of any foreign army. New York Times, May 14, 1940, p. 10.

35 Unless, perhaps, one took the view that international law required acceptance of the plea of superior command. It is believed that it does not. See Garner, , “Punishment of Offenders Against the Laws and Customs of War,” This Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 70 ffGoogle Scholar., esp. pp. 82–88. Also the same author’s International Law and the World War (1920), II, No. 588. But see Oppenheim, op. cit., II, No. 253. Cf. remarks by Lord Cave on “War Crimes and Their Punishment,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, VIII (1923), pp. xix–xxxi, esp. pp. xxii–xxiii.

36 This Journal, Supplement, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 65.