Thomas Erskine Holland

In ordering the conduct of which we complain, Germany commits an atrocious crime against humanity and public law; but those who, being duly commissioned, carry out her orders, are neither pirates nor murderers.

The first duty of a ship of war which proposes to sink an enemy vessel is admittedly, before so doing, to provide for the safety of all its occupants, which (except in certain rare eventualities) can only be secured by their being taken on…

The war of 1914 has definitely established the employment of aircraft for hostile purposes, and, as evidenced by the reception given by belligerents to neutral protests, the sovereignty of a state over its superincumbent air-spaces.

Arthur Cohen has done good service by explaining that Great Britain has practically asserted the right of a State to absolute control of the airspace vertically above its territory.

The problems now raised are admittedly incapable of solution a priori, but the difference between the two schools of thinkers is instructive, as bearing upon the extent to which those who belong to one or the other school would incline…

The threat that similar methods of attack will be systematically employed, on a large scale, on and after the 18th inst., naturally excites as much indignation among neutrals as among the Allies of the Entente.

It was scandalously not followed in the cases of the Tokomaru, the Ikaria, and the hospital ship (!) Asturias, against which a submarine fired torpedoes, off Havre, without warning or inquiry, and, of course, regardless of the fate of…

Such rights, I would again urge, if enjoyed by one Power, should be enjoyed by all; upon terms to be settled, not by any pair of Powers but by the Powers collectively.

They are of such a character that, in the struggle for existence, Turkey can hardly be blamed for disregarding them.

It would, indeed, be straining what may be taken to be a general principle of international law to say that Turkey is by it prohibited from protecting her threatened capital by temporarily closing the Straits.

I cordially agree, as would, I suppose, most people, with your leading article of some weeks since in deprecating any crude application to the case of the Dardanelles and Bosporus of dicta with reference to freedom of passage through…

Supposing the convention to have become operative, and supposing the territorial Power to be neutral in a war between States which we may call A and B, the convention would certainly entitle A to claim unmolested passage for its ships of…

If this be indeed the Pope's meaning, his aspirations are now less likely than ever to be realised.

I am only concerned to maintain that, as far as international law is concerned, England has a free hand either to expel resident enemies or to prevent them from leaving the country, as may seem most conducive to her own safety.

It may also be a question of high policy whether resident enemies would not be a greater danger to this country if they were compelled to remain here, than if they were allowed, or compelled, to depart, possibly to return as invaders.

The peaceably engaged foreign resident is now in all probability a trained soldier, and liable to be recalled to the flag of a possible enemy.

The doctrine of Vattel has, in fact, become less plausible than it was before universal liability to military service had become the rule in most Continental countries.

But may such persons be, for good reasons, arrested, or otherwise prevented from leaving the country, as Germans were prevented from leaving France in the earlier days of the Franco-Prussian War?

There is, however, little doubt that such persons, although now more usually allowed to remain, during good behaviour, may be expelled, and, if necessary, wholesale, as were Germans from France in 1870.

International law has in modern times spoken with no very certain voice as to the permissible treatment of alien enemies found within the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of war.

No apology is due to our Government, nor have the owners of the Kowshing, or the relatives of any of her European officers who may have been lost, any claim for compensation.

The force employed seems not to have been in excess of what might lawfully be used, either for the arrest of an enemy's neutral transport or for barring the progress of a hostile expedition.

If, as was the fact, it was practically impossible for a Japanese prize crew to be placed on board of her, the Japanese commander was within his rights, in using any amount of force necessary to compel her to obey his orders.

Whether or no hostilities had previously occurred upon the mainland, I hold that the acts of the Japanese commander in boarding the Kowshing and threatening her with violence in case of disobedience to his orders were acts of war.

If the visiting, and eventual sinking, of the Kowshing occurred in time of peace, or in time of war before she had notice that war had broken out, a gross outrage has taken place.