The Regulation in which these articles figure is itself merely an annex to the Convention which alone forms the contractual obligation between the parties, and the engagement which the parties to the Convention have undertaken is (Article 1) to 'issue instructions to their armed land forces in conformity with the Regulations respecting the Law and Customs of war on land.'
This makes it abundantly clear that the purpose and scope of the Regulations is limited to the proceedings of the armies in the field; those armies are under the orders of the commanders, and the Governments are bound to issue instructions to those commanders to act in accordance with the Regulations. That is all. There is nothing in the Convention or in the Regulations dealing with the rights or the status of the non-combatant individuals, whether of enemy nationality or domiciled in enemy territory. They are, of course, if inhabitants of the theatre of war, affected by the provisions of the Regulations because they are individuals who are affected by the military operations, and in a sense a regulation which forbids a military commander from poisoning a well gives a non-combatant inhabitant a right or a quasi-right not to have his well poisoned, but his rights against his neighbours, his relations with private individuals, whether of his own or of enemy nationality, remain untouched by this series of rules for the conduct of warfare on land.
Turning now to the actual wording of Article 23(h) it will be seen that it begins with the wording 'to declare.' It is particularly forbidden 'to declare abolished, &c.' This wording necessarily contemplates the issue of some proclamation or notification purporting to abrogate or to change rights previously existing and which would otherwise have continued to exist, and in view of Article I of the Convention this hypothetical proclamation must have been one which it was assumed the commander of the army would issue; consequently, stated broadly, the effect of Article 23(h) is that a commander in the field is forbidden to attempt to terrorise the inhabitants of the theatre of war by depriving them of existing opportunities of obtaining relief to which they are entitled in respect of private claims.
Sir E. Grey is much obliged to you for calling his attention to the extract which you quote from the German White Book. This extract may be translated as follows:—'Article 23 has also received on German proposal two weighty additions. By the first the fundamental principle of the inviolability of private property in the domain of legal claims is recognised. According to the legislation of individual states, war has the result of extinguishing or temporarily suspending, or at least of suppressing the liability of the state or its nationals to be sued by nationals of the enemy. These prescriptions have now been declared inadmissible by Article 23(h).'
The original form of the addition to Article 23 which the German delegates proposed was as follows: 'de déclarer éteintes, suspendues ou non recevables les réclamations privées de ressortissants de la Partie adverse' (see procès-verbal of the 2nd meeting of the 1st sub-Committee of the 2nd Committee, 10th July, 1907).
There is nothing to show that any explanation was vouchsafed to the effect that the proposed addition to the article was intended to mean more than its wording necessarily implied, though there is a statement by one of the German delegates in the procès-verbal of the 1st meeting of the 1st sub-Committee of the 2nd Committee, on July 3rd, which in all probability must have referred to this particular amendment, though the procès-verbal does not render it at all clear; nor is the statement itself free from ambiguity. An amendment was suggested and accepted at the second meeting to add the words 'en justice' after 'non recevables,' and in this form the sub-article was considered by an examining committee, was accepted and incorporated in Article 23, and brought before and accepted by the Conference in its 4th Plenary Sitting on the 17th August, 1907.
The subsequent alteration in the wording must have been made by the Drafting Committee, but cannot have been considered to affect the substance of the provision, as in the 10th Plenary Sitting on October 17th, 1907, the reporter of the Drafting Committee, in dealing with the verbal amendments made in this Convention, merely said, 'En ce qui concerne le règlement lui-même, je n'appellerai pas votre attention sur les différentes modifications de style sans importance que nous y avons introduites.'
Nor is there anything to indicate any such far-reaching interpretation as the German White Book suggests in the report which accompanied the draft text of the Convention when it was brought before the Plenary Sitting of the Conference (Annex A. to 4th Plenary Sitting). It merely states that the addition is regarded as embodying in very happy terms a consequence of the principles accepted in 1899.
The result appears to Sir E. Grey to be that neither the wording nor the context nor the circumstances attending the introduction of the provision which now figures as Article 23(h) support the interpretation which the writers you quote place upon it and which the German White Book endorses.
Sir E. Grey notices that, in the extract you quote, Monsieur Politis, after placing his own interpretation upon the article, remarks that it is quite foreign to the hypothesis of the occupation of territory and ought to be removed from the Regulations and turned into a Convention by itself. If this interpretation were correct, this remark of Monsieur Politis is certainly true: but the fact that the provision appears where it does should have suggested to Monsieur Politis that it does not bear the interpretation he puts upon it.