On the record
What neutral States would ever take up arms for the sole reason that, two Powers being at war, the 'laws of war' had been violated by one or both of the belligerents?
Said by
Thomas Erskine Holland
Source
gutenberg.orgThomas Erskine Holland: “What neutral States would ever take up arms for the sole reason that, two Powers being at war, the 'laws of war' had…”
Editor's note · Context
Holland questions the likelihood of neutral states intervening in wars based solely on violations of war laws.
Share
More from Thomas Erskine Holland
Perpetual peace is a dream, and it is not even a beautiful dream.
Laws of war are consequently more than ever important and necessary, since, in the differences of culture and opinion which prevail between individuals and classes, law is almost the only moral power the force of which is acknowledged by…
It is impossible for the soldier who endures sufferings, hardships, fatigues, who meets danger, to take only 'in proportion to the resources of the country.' He must take whatever is needful for his existence.
Success can come only from the religious moral education of individuals and from the feeling of honour and sense of justice of commanders who enforce the law and conform to it so far as the exceptional circumstances of war permit.
Other voices in this conversation
