FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1909
1909 - 0794.PDF
DECEMBER II, 1909, THE LIMITATIONS OF AERIAL BOMBARDMENT BY INTERNATIONAL LAW; By COL. F. THE bombardment ox undefended towns by aerial vessels ha> become not only the stock-in-trade of writers of romance, but is freely discussed by responsible persons as an inevitable concomitant of war between civilised (?) nations. Thus to take a single example :— On April 21st, at a meeting of the National Defence Association, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu read a paper in which he discussed the bombardment of London by airships, aad pointed out that "pro- jectiles filled not only with explosives, but with poisonous gases . . . would not only blow up and set on fire, but would suffocate as well " ; and goes on to say : " I leave to the imagination of my hearers what effect a few hundreds of these shells would have on nerve centres such as the General Post Office, the chief telephone exchanges, the railway centres, the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the other banks which closely surround it, the Royal Palaces, the Houses of Parliament, and the Government offices, and in the most crowded streets and most thickly inhabited portions of the Metropolis." Lord Montagu's views were emphatically endorsed by such well- known and distinguished public men as Sir Vincent Caillard and Lord Denbigh, the former committing himself to the statement that: " We know perfectly well that during war time all means are fair." We would, however, remind Sir Vincent Caillard that although the adage hafh it that " All is fair in love and war," yet we know well that any man who traded too freely on the former part of the adage, would render himself liable to social ostracism, and, as regards the latter part, there can be nothing more contrary to observed facts, whether we consider the code of school-boy honour, which regulates the settlement of youthful differences, or the punctilious etiquette of the duej, or, finally, the codification of the laws and customs of war, which shows a conscious desire on the part of civilised nations to play their part honourably in the great game of war, in accordance with an ever-progressive standard of humanity and moral obligation, which, so far as our experience goes, has hitherto been strictly observed. It would appear, therefore, that in the absence of any proved derelictions from the international code of honour in the past, we have no justification in assuming (as Sir Vincent Caillard does) that any nation will cynically cut itself adrift in the future from all moral obligations, on the plea that " during war time all means are fair." The bombardment of defendedtowns has always been recog- nised as a legitimate method of bringing about, or helping to bring abo*, their capitulation, and has been governed by the laws and customs of war in such a way as to minimise its horrors ; these are codifitd in the following articles of the Annexe to Convention 4 of the Hague Conference of 1907 :— Article 26.—The officer in command of an attacking force must do all in his power to warn the authorities, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault. Article 27.—In seigesand bombardments, all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to public worship, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. Paris suffered more at the hands of the Commune than from the German bombardment; of the civil population only 97 persons were killed and 278 wounded during the seige (" Vinoy's Seige de Paris," p. 380). But the bombardment of undefended towns and the destruction of private property has never been permitted by the laws and customs of war, and is expressly prohibited by the Hague Conference of 1907, under the following Articles in Convention No. 4 : Article 23 (G).—It is particularly forbidden to destroy or seize enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. Article 25.—The attack or bombardment, by any means whatever, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden. Convention 9.—And in Article I of the Convention respecting bombardments by naval forces in time of war, we read : The bombardment by naval forces of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings is forbidden. M Further, at the Hague Conference of 1899, the following declara- tions were adopted : ^ Dectdration 1.—The contracting Powers agree to prohibit, for a period of five years, the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature. This declaration, which expired by efflux of time, was submitted * Paper read before the Aeronautical Society of Great Britain, Friday, December 10th, 1909. 796 G. STONE. for renewal to the Conference of 1907, in terms providing for it& continuance in force until the conclusion of the third Peace Con- ference. It was felt, however, by many of the Powers than inasmuch as aerial vessels used for reconnaissance or any other military purpose would certainly be attacked by every legitimate means, it was altogether unreasonable to deprive them of the means of retaliation* and nearly all the Powers, except Great Britain, the United States, and Austria-Hungary, declined to ratify. At the same time, it was felt that the use of projectiles and explosives by aerial vessels must be confined within the same limitations as govern their use by land and sea forces, and the insertion of the words : "by any means whatever," in Article 25 of Convention No. 4, was held to provide sufficiently for this; this was agreed to unanimously by all the great Powers. Declaration 3.—The contracting Powers renounce the use of pro-jectiles, the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or harmful gases. This Declaration, made in 1899, remains in force until denounced. A year's notice is required of the intention to denounce any Article of the Conventions of the Hague Peace Conferences. It must be admitted that the Powers are unanimous in refusing to allow any licence in aerial warfare, which is not permitted in land or sea warfare, and that it is clearly their intention to prohibit bom- bardment, except as a means of breaking down the resistance of a defended town, or of destroying an enemy's warlike personnel or material. Thus it would be legitimate to bombard Portsmouth from aerial vessels in conjunction with an attack by sea or land, or both,, against the defences ; but it would not be legitimate to bombard Southampton. It would be legitimate to bombard Aldershot Camp* if troops were lying there, and the town might suffer incidentally from its proximity to the camp. Again, it would be legitimate to- bombard Woolwich Arsenal, and in this case also, the town might suffer incidentally. But when we come to consider London, we cannot admit that it is a '.' defended " town in the sense that Ports- mouth is, or in the sense in which we believe the Plenipotentiaries at the Hague Conference used the term. True, there are forts at the- mouth of the Thames to prevent the access of an enemy's warships to the docks and City of London, but it would be a strained inter- pretation ol the intentions of the Powers to admit that if warships- were attacking Chatham and Sheerness with a view to facilitating their undisturbed progress up the Thames, it would be justifiable at the same time for airships to bombard Cheapside with a view to creating a panic, on the plea that London was "defended" by the guns at Chatham and Sheerness, and therefore liable to bombard- ment in conjunction with an attack on those places. The intention' seems clear that it would be justifiable to bombard the town of Chatham if such a proceeding were in any way likely to facilitate the capture of its defences, which, however, we cannot admit to be the case. Apart, however, from the fact that bombardment of undefended towns would be an act of sheer barbarism, there is another aspect of the case. W7ould it be worth while? Mr. Mond, the Liberal Member for Chester, put this view of the question very clearly in the discussion which followed Mr. Haldane's statement to the House on the subject of airships for war purposes, on August 3rd. The Hon. Member said : " It was unlikely in these days that one nation would attack another by blindly scattering explosives about undefended towns. No nation would make peace simply because the enemy was killing its civilians." Lord Balcarres, Unionist Member for Chorley, Lanes., who followed, did not share " the optimism of the Hon. Member .... If the Hon. Member was right in saying that no civilised country would ever use airships to drop explosives on an unfortified town, was it too much to ask the Government to make inquiries among the other Powers of Europe with a view to agreeing at the next Geneva (? Hague) Conference to a clause providing that airships and ex- plosives should not be used in that way. If the Powers did not mean to smash civil property in time of war, they would not object to such a proposal." It may be admitted that the distinction between an " undefended " as opposed to " fortified " town lacks definition under modem con- ditions, and that in this lack of definition lies a possible danger. It would be a distinct gain to civilisation if the next Hague Con- ference would introduce an article into the Convention regulating the laws and customs of war, somewhat to the following effect: That no bombardment of any sort, whether by land or sea, or from aerial vessels, shall be permitted against any place or locality, except for the purpose of destroying its defences or defenders, or the war material contained within its boundaries.
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
