An assertion to this effect would obviously be the negation of the whole system of international law, of which Professor de Martens is so great a master, resting, as that system does, not on individual caprice, but upon the agreement of nations in restraint of the caprice of any one of them.
Holland argues that questioning a neutral country's decisions undermines international law.
Share
More from Thomas Erskine Holland
Since compulsory service has turned standing armies into national armies, war has also become national.
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…
We see a general legal persuasion ever in process of more and more distinct formation uniting all civilised peoples.
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?
Other voices in this conversation
