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.orgEditor'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
States differ so widely in offensive power and vulnerability that it would be hardly advisable thus to fetter the liberty of action of a State which considers itself to have been injured.
In it the noblest virtues of mankind are developed; courage and the abnegation of self, faithfulness to duty, and the spirit of sacrifice: the soldier gives his life.
Without war the world would stagnate, and lose itself in materialism.
This being so, it is necessary to recognise also that increased humanity in the mode of making war has in reality followed upon the gradual softening of manners.
Other voices in this conversation
