INTERNATIONAL LAW

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 34, 4 November 1937, Page 8

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Application To Japan ATTACK ON CHINA One of the latest developments of the hostilities between China and Japan seems to have raised some important questions of international law. and their significance is not; only juridical. Here I am confined to the questions of the Japanese aerial bombardment of the Chinese capital, of the Japanese attempt to assassinate the Chinese Prime Alinister, ami of the Japanese naval blockade of China’s sea coast, stated a writer in "The Times” recently. Though war can break out without preliminaries as laid down in The Hague Convention (III) of 1907 concerning the opening of hostilities, both Chinese and Japanese Governments have not yet recognised that they are now formally fit war. Neither third States nor an international authority like the League of Nations have established that there exists a state of war between China and Japan. In view of the fact that the present hostilities between China and Japan have not assumed so far the status of war in the technical meaning of international law, it is difficult to explain and justify the following episodes staged by the Japanese without holding Japan responsible for international delinquency. Japan has systematically carried out air raids on Nanking, the capital of China, with which Japan has not broken off its diplomatic relations. The strong protest of the British and American diplomatic representatives in Nanking against Japanese bombing of the Chinese capital is clear vindication _ of the best established rules of international law that Japan has deliberately violated. Head of the State. The Japanese gross outrage upon the British Ambassador in China brought to the fore a serious question of International Law apart from that of the immunity of non-combatants from direct attack. It is the legality of an attempt to assassinate the head of a State by the armed forces of another State in time of war. The Japanese justification of their outrage upon the British Ambassador was that tire Japanese thought "General Chiang Kai-shek, the Prime Alinister, was to travel along the Nanking and Shanghai road and they had therefore ordered their airmen to attack all motor-cars on the road.” The Japanese at Shanghai even put the excuse like this: “AVe did not plot to shoot the British Ambassador, but what we did plot was to murder the head of a neighbouring State.” In fact, the laws of warfare forbid any attempt to assassinate the head of an enemy State. The Hague Convention (IV) of 1907 even prohibits the belligerents from killing

or wounding by treachery individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army. The draft Rules of Aerial Warfare of 1923, to which the Japanese delegation affixed their signature, have made it clear that: to drop a pamphlet inciting to assassination constitutes an offence under the laws of war (Cmd. 2201 (1924). p. 25), although propaganda by aircraft is legalised by these rules. Since China and Japan are not yet formally at war, the Japanese attempt to assassinate the Chinese Prime Minister must be condemned by all international lawyers, so that such cruelty shall never happen again. Japan has now declared a naval blockade of China’s sea coast —1000 miles south from .Shanghai to a point below Swatow—against Chinese shipping. To blockade the' shores of a country with which the blockading State has still maintained its diplomatic relations cannot be justified by any rules of international law. Neither can the naval blockade be called pacific blockade, because the Japanese in Tokio have already stated that only “peaceful commerce” carried by ships of third States will not be interfered with, and the Japanese navy are free to board any ships of third States for identification of their nationality. In fact no rule of international law could establish such a right of interference, as pacific (different from beligerent) blockade is merely a matter between the conflicting States. Alany writers of international law have maintained that even a pacific blockade is a breach of the Pact of Paris, because the purpose of the Paet will be frustrated if it permits without restriction recourse to measures of force short of war. Thisview is supported by the Budapest Articles of Interpretation of the Pact of Paris.

“The Times” in a leading article has rightly described Japanese aggression as “a fulHlress invasion of China without even declaring war.” It is also safe to say in terms of international law that Japan, which deliberately orders the commencement of hostilities without a previous declaration of war, commits an international delinquency, and that the laws of warfare no doubt find application for a war not legally and officially recognised.