At the dawn of modern international law during the first quarter of the seventeenth century not only the sick and wounded of a vanquished foe, but every prisoner, and even women and children, suffered to the fullest the indignities and cruelties incident to the rough warfare of the age; but the growth of mercy has softened the asperities of war, and among the milestones that mark this advance toward a more humane usage the Red Cross Society holds an honored place. Under its rules the sick and wounded were no longer left to the irregular and capricious care of private benevolence, but were made the subject of organized and systematic treatment by a staff of skilled physicians and experienced nurses provided with hospital and ambulance facilities, and, thus equipped and assured the protection of both combatants, they were able to work effectively in their ministrations to the sick and dying.
Vast as was this progress from the days when at the siege of Acre the first real attention since the dark ages was given to the wounded by the Order of Teutonic Knights, there was still one serious imperfection that limited its sphere of usefulness—it did not apply to warfare on the seas. An effort had indeed been made in 1868 to extend the Red Cross rules to naval warfare, but it failed, and the wounded in conflicts on the sea continued to be left to the old provisions, which were necessarily inadequate and could not be exercised under the joint protection of the combatants. The virtue of the good Samaritan is a potent force, but to be fully effective on the field of battle it must be exercised under a common system established and maintained by the mutual consent of nations. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that because the effort made in 1868 to extend these rules to sea warfare failed on account of their non-ratification, they were not sustained by public opinion. Many difficulties, especially those of a technical character, stood in the way; but public opinion was ever growing in their favor, and it eventually came to be regarded as an anomaly that while the care of the sick and wounded in land warfare had been regulated upon a common basis of international agreement, no similar provision existed for the care of the victims of naval combat. Without some such extension of the rules no adequate expression could be given to the growing humanity of the age.
For these reasons it will be obvious that the next step necessary in the further development of the Red Cross work consisted of its extension to naval warfare. The Peace Conference subjected the Convention of 1864 and the additional rules of 1868 to a careful examination, considered at length the difficulties in the way, and finally adopted a new series of rules providing for an organized staff of physicians and nurses, with hospital ships and life-saving appliances, which shall, without interfering with operations, be henceforth employed in naval engagements and enjoy the protection of both combatants.
The newly formulated rules, in conjunction with the previous ones relating to land warfare, are the practical embodiment of the growing feelings of humanity and mercy in the conduct of warfare which, commencing with the Peace of Westphalia, has been ever more and more effective in securing the evolution of a better usage.
The Brussels Rules.—So, too, with reference to the rules governing the conduct of armies in the field the work of the conference represents a sound and healthy evolution.
It may be remarked, by way of preface, that the old idea of war regarded hostilities as working the absolute interruption of all relations between belligerents, save those arising from force; it also regarded the enemy as a proper object of violence and depredation. Even in the time of Grotius the universal usage permitted the putting to death of all persons found in the enemy’s territory, and in the terrible struggles of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany and the Eighty Years’ War in the Netherlands the story of the fate of men, women, and children at the hands of a conquering soldiery forms one of the darkest chapters in human history.
But while Grotius declared this to be the usage, he also took care to point out that considerations of justice and mercy dictate a better course, and he made a distinction between certain classes, declaring that justice requires the belligerent to spare those who have done no wrong to him, especially old men, priests, husbandmen, merchants, prisoners, women, and children. This merciful distinction was eagerly seized upon by his successors, who gradually developed out of it different rules for the treatment of the “combatant” and “non-combatant” portion of the enemy inhabitants. After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which marked the close of the great struggles that had so long convulsed Europe, the older and more brutal customs fell into disuse, and the theory that only so much stress should be put upon an enemy, and primarily upon the combatant portion, as was sufficient to destroy his power of resistance was substituted for it. Along with this new usage grew the ever-increasing rights of neutrals, among them being that of trade and commerce with the non-combatant portion of belligerent states, which has done so much to lighten the hardships of war suffered by those devoted to peaceful pursuits in the enemy’s territory.
The next important step in this evolution belongs to the present century, and is due to the enlightened initiative of the United States. This step consisted in the preparation of a manual containing a code of rules for the conduct of land warfare. Keenly alive to the inevitable sufferings incident to the great civil conflict then being waged, Abraham Lincoln commissioned Francis Lieber to prepare a series of rules for the conduct of the armies of the republic in the field which should set bounds to the passions of the soldiery.[I] In pursuance of this commission, a code of rules was prepared and adopted which has since been known as Lieber’s Manual; it was published in 1863, and proved a blessing to soldier and civilian alike. So obvious, indeed, were its good results that other nations rapidly followed the lead of the United States, and similar manuals were issued by Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and other powers.
[I] See Pierantoni, Die Fortschritte des Völkerrechts im neunzehnten Jahrhundert.
But while Lieber’s Manual was thus taken as the model by various nations, there were inevitably developed serious divergencies in the rules and details. Recognizing the desirability of a common code, which should be binding upon all nations, Alexander II of Russia attempted to secure the united action of the leading states, and, pursuant to his initiative, the Conference of Brussels was called in 1874. In the sessions of this conference the rules already developed were carefully examined, and ultimately a series of articles, well calculated to form the basis for an excellent international code, was adopted. As the delegates, however, had not been given plenary powers by their respective governments, their action was necessarily ineffective without subsequent ratification. Upon this rock the conference was wrecked, and the rules which it had formulated acquired no binding authority.