The question is a new one, but, though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it is covered by certain well-established principles of international law, which, it is hardly necessary to remark, is no cut-and-dried system but a body of rules founded upon, and moving with, the public opinion of nations.
Holland reflects on the evolving nature of international law, shaped by public opinion rather than rigid rules.
Share
More from Thomas Erskine Holland
This is what makes it possible to proclaim an international law of war, approved by the legal conscience of all civilised peoples; and when a principle is thus generally accepted, it exerts an authority over minds and manners which curbs…
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?
I am of opinion that in war, where everything must be individual, the only articles which will prove efficacious are those which are addressed specifically to commanders.
We see a general legal persuasion ever in process of more and more distinct formation uniting all civilised peoples.
Other voices in this conversation
