Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-h2j7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-23T20:48:49.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Laws of War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Alfred P. Rubin
Alfred P. Rubin*
Affiliation:
U.S. Naval War College . Professor Rubin's views are not necessarily shared by the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Government
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
The 75th Anniversary of the Second Hague Peace Conference
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 76 , 1982 , pp. 139 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 It is frequently forgotten that the first “war” in which the United States participated after our Constitution was adopted was the “undeclared war” with France of 1798-1800, in which the Congress authorized naval captures and privateering, clearly rights only of belligerents. See Acts of May 28, July 7, July 9, 1978, 1 Stat. 561, 578-80.

2 1968 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 58.

3 Tinoco Case (Great Britain v. Costa Rica), 1 U.N.R.I.A.A. 369, 18 AJIL 147 (1924).

4 6 U.S.T. 3516, T.I.A.S. No. 3365, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.

5 The text is published at 72 AJIL 457 (1978) and 16 ILM 1391 (1977).

6 The Alabama Rules provide that “A neutral government is bound—First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel…. and … to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace.” The British made it clear that they rejected this rule as a statement of the general international law of neutrality, but accepted it solely for purposes of restoring friendly relations between themselves and the victorious American Union. 61 BRIT. FOREIGN & ST. PAPERS 40, 43 (1877).

7 19 ILM 1523 (1980).