Since, according to the law of nations and the law of war to-day, war makes enemies of States and not of private persons, it follows that every arbitrary devastation of the country and every destruction of private property, generally speaking every unnecessary (i.e., not required by the necessity of war) injury to alien property is contrary to the law of nations. Every inhabitant of the territory occupied is therefore to be protected alike in his person and in his property.
In this sense spoke King William to the French at the beginning of the Campaign of 1870: “I wage war with the French soldiers and not with the French citizens. The latter will therefore continue to enjoy security for their person and their goods, so long as they do not by hostile undertakings against German troops deprive me of the right to afford them my protection.”
The question stands in quite another position if the necessity of war demands the requisition of the stranger’s property, whether public or private. In this case of course every sequestration, every temporary or permanent deprivation, every use, every injury and all destruction are permitted.
The following principles therefore result:
1. Prohibited unconditionally are all aimless destructions, devastations, burnings, and ravages of the enemy’s country. The soldier who practises such things is punished as an offender according to the appropriate laws.[93]
2. Permissible on the other hand are all destructions and injuries dictated by military considerations; and, indeed,
(a) All demolitions of houses and other buildings, bridges, railways, and telegraphic establishments, due to the necessity of military operations.
(b) All injuries which are required through military movements in the country or for earthworks for attack or defense.
(a) All demolitions of houses and other buildings, bridges, railways, and telegraphic establishments, due to the necessity of military operations.
(b) All injuries which are required through military movements in the country or for earthworks for attack or defense.
Hence the double rule: No harm must be done, not even the very slightest, which is not dictated by military consideration; every kind of harm may be done, even the very utmost, which the conduct of war requires or which comes in the natural course of it.
Whether the natural justification exists or not is a subject for decision in each individual case. The answer to this question lies entirely in the power of the Commanding Officer, from whose conscience our times can expect and demand as far-reaching humanity as the object of war permits.
On similar principles must be answered the question as to the temporary use of property, dispositions as to houses and the like: no inhabitant of the occupied territory is to be disturbed in the use and free disposition of his property, on the other hand the necessity of war justifies the most far-reaching disturbance, restriction, and even imperiling of his property. In consequence there are permitted:
1. Requisitions of houses and their furniture for the purpose of billeting troops.
2. Use of houses and their furniture for the care of the sick and wounded.
3. Use of buildings for observation, shelter, defense, fortification, and the like.