Of such a step I have already written that it "would be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the imperfect expression of a treaty by tacking on to it an equally authoritative reasoned commentary.
Holland critiques the practice of adding commentary to treaties, arguing it could lead to confusion.
Share
More from Thomas 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 been violated by one or both of the belligerents?
They testify to, and may promote, a very widely spread entente cordiale, they enhance the prestige of the tribunal of The Hague, and they assure the reference to that tribunal of certain classes of questions which might otherwise give rise…
It has long been a universally recognised custom of warfare that a flag of truce must not be fired on, and yet we have seen that rule violated on several occasions during the late war.
Never will an article learnt by rote persuade soldiers to see a regular enemy (sections 2-4) in the unorganised population which takes up arms 'spontaneously' (so of its own motion) and puts them in danger of their life at every moment of…
Other voices in this conversation
