No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Now that the conquest of the air has become an accomplished fact and the adaptability of aircraft to hostile operations has been fully demonstrated, the question of the necessary modifications of, or additions to the laws of warfare becomes a matter of present interest and importance. It would be as idle as presumptuous for any writer—no matter what his reputation or ability—to attempt the formulation of a complete code that takes into account a “law of the air.” Such a work could be satisfactorily accomplished only by an international conference after an exhaustive discussion and a nice adjustment of belligerent and neutral interests. Possibly the Third Hague Conference, scheduled to meet in 1915, may undertake the work; but wars do not wait on conferences, and hence a study of the subject in the light of recent developments may serve a useful purpose.
1 This is the German army dirigible that, as a result of adverse meteorological conditions, entered the air space above French territory during its trial trip. The aeronauts voluntarily landed at LunéVille, April 3, 1913, in order to prove that it was not a case of espionage or voluntary invasion. The German explanations were accepted, but the French were given an excellent opportunity to study a type about which the Germans had endeavored to maintain a strict secrecy. One of the most striking innovations noted was a platform on top of the balloon, presumably for mounting a machine gun capable of vertical fire.
2 The Two Hague Conferences, Hull, p. 78.
3 The vote was: ayes, 29; noes, 8; abstentions, 7. The United States delegation voted aye; Germany and France, no; and Japan and Mexico abstained from voting.
It is noteworthy that none of the Powers that have engaged in war since the close of the Second Conference—Turkey, Italy, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, Roumania, and Mexico—is among the ratifiers.
4 Art. 25, Annex, 4 H. C. (1907).
5 Arts. 26 and 27, Annex, 4 H. C. (1907), and 9 H. C. (1907).
6 Art. 29, Annex, 4 H. C. (1907).
7 Art. 53, Annex, 4 H. C. (1907).
8 Art. 24 and 24 (8).
9 Art. 11, 5 H . C. (1907).
10 Art. 2 and footnote to Art. 2 of the rules submitted by M. von Bar to the Institute of International Law in 1911.
11 Art. 2 (b. 1) of the rules submitted to the Institute of International Law in 1911.
12 Section II, Chapter I, Annex 4 H. C. (1907).
13 Art. 23 (e), Annex, 4 H. C. (1907).
14 International Law Situations, 1912, Naval War College, pp. 122–129.
15 See International Law Situations, 1912, pp. 90–91.