The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1917. ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN WARTIME

New Zealand Tablet, 16 August 1917, Page 25

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1917. ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN WARTIME

AR is, according to Grotius, a state of violent conflict between opponents formally declared as such— status per vim certantium, qua tale* sunt, —and in modern phraseology it is a condition of armed active hostility between two or more sovereign states. Wars are just or unjust according as the conditions warrant them or not : wars are offensive or defensive according to some writers as they are on the side of the State which first declares war, or on that of the State against which war is declared, although, strictly speaking, as every just war presupposes some hostile or unjust act a war may be defensive on the side of the State that declares war. Rightly, therefore, a defensive war signifies a war undertaken in defence of the people or of the property or the honor of the State from which it follows that a just war is always in the nature of a defence. Again, that any war be just it is necessary that it be declared by the supreme authority in the State; that it be waged against actual aggression on the part of the enemy; or against an enemy who refuses to repair grave injuries already done; or in punishment for such injuries. Common sense dictates that no war be undertaken if the injustice can be repaired in any other way. The natural law teaches that during wartime no unnecessary damage be done to life or property, and that acts in themselves wrong, such as slaughter of innocent people, lies and treachery, must be avoided, and that as soon as the end of the war is obtained to continue the slaughter is murder. * A just war, therefore, being in the nature of a defence, it is lawful to beat down all opposition on the part of the enemy and to scatter all combatants. But war does not justify the too frequent policy of molesting non-combatants; for to do violence to them is in no way an act of self-defence or in any way excusable. The question is, who come under the category of combatants ? First, all those who are actually engaged in aggression, forming an actual part of the belligerent forces; and, secondly, all who are actually engaged in the promotion of the war though not part of the actual belligerent forces. Under these categories come all soldiers in uniform or soldiers called to arms, all persons who are engaged in supporting them, such as workers on arms and munitions, and persons occupied in transporting food or munitions to the soldiers. Spies who enter the enemies' territory under the guise of subjects can be

punished at- the discretion of the authorities. But prisoners taken in battle are ho longer active aggressors and to kill them is murder. A State has no authority over their lives except with regard to actions done by them after they have been taken prisoners. In the case of rebels the State has authority and is justified in punishing them even after they have been taken prisoners. Thus, if we once admit that the Irish insurgents were rebels against lawful authority we admit the right of the State to deal with them as such. But in the eyes of every Irish Nationalist no allegiance is due to a Government which on its own confession rules in virtue of a Bill passed by fraud and chicanery. * . * The same principles analogically apply to the destruction' of property by an army. All property that has been ear-marked for purposes of war can be destroyed even if belonging to private persons. In all other cases private property must be respected. The international law allows the invader to appropriate public property with certain exceptions excluded by treaty. As regards private property the law does not sanction the appropriation of movables or immovables, or of the profits arising from them, unless they are calculated to help the enemy directly. An army- of occupation may levy requisitions and contributions for its support and to pay for the administration of the place, but for all such exactions private persons have a right to receive a receipt entitling them to compensation for their losses. To destroy a war-loan would be perfectly lawful, but to kill those who subscribe to such loan would bo unlawful. * Beyond- these general principles and their application to questions that ordinarily arise in war time some new problems have arisen in connection with the present war. They have never arisen before, and it is to be hoped they never will again. Chief among these are the air-raids and the submarining of merchant vessels. A little reflection will show that the old principles apply to these new phases of war. It is always unlawful to intend to kill non-combatants or to destroy private property. Consequently, although airraids upon fortifications, arsenals, military barracks, munition factories and other belligerent institutions are allowed, provided due care is taken to safeguard the lives and property of non-combatants, indiscriminate raids upon unfortified cities are inexcusable. Such raids aim directly at the death of non-combatants in pursuance of a policy of striking terror into the people and undermining their morale. Consequently air-raids on London are wrong, just as the policy advocated publicly by Lord Rosebery and by the London Times during the South African war was wrong. It cannot be urged in palliation of such offences that the killing of non-combatants is indirectly intended, for there is no end gained of sufficient importance to justify such an excuse. Again, it is allowed to sink ships carrying food to soldiers, but to sink ships not engaged in the war is contrary to the natural law. If a passenger ship is known to carry munitions it is lawful to sink her provided that all that is possible is done to save the passengers. With regard to reprisals they are not justified when they involve doing something which is wrong because of the natural law. To blockade a country which has already instituted a blockade to prevent food from-coming in is lawful, but to retaliate by air-raids on unfortified towns is never lawful. What is evil by the natural law remains evil, and no provocation excuses it : two wrongs never make a right. War itself, even when just, is full of evil things, and like a surgical operation is tolerable only as the cure of intolerable ills.