Evening star., 1915-07-15
Germany and international Law.

Germany and International Law.
Doctrines. of international law are
based upon precedent and agree
ment There is no body of law be-
tween nations that can be regarded
as absolutely impregnable to change
and innovation, inasumch as these
precedents and agreements are con-
stantiy arising from new conditions
and each international crisis partakes
in character of the existing conditions.
But agreements between nations
usually follow wars or disputes which
are prevented from causing hostili-
ties by the exercise of arbitration.
Thus while war or the menace of war
is the chief inducing cause of inter
: national law amendment, changes are
the result of discussion and accord.
In the present conflict new con-
dition has developed in the use of
the submarine as a commerce de-
stroyer. The operations of the Ger
man submarines have caused losses
OF life at sea, in a manner clearly
violative of the principles of interna-
tional law as it was written before
the war began. The United States
has protested on the strength of the
killing of over 100 Americans in the
sinking of the Lusitania without the
giving of time for her company to
escape. Germany has replied by
justifying the action as a necessary
method of submarine warfare, and
q has sought, in the midst of conflict,
to write upon her own initiative
new doctrine of international law, on
: the ground that the submarine has
changed conditions.
The broad question of today is
whether nation is justified in set
ting up new principles in the emer-
: geney OF warfare by the production
OF new engines of destruction or by
the utilization of old ones in a man
ner violative of the established limi-
. -tations and requirements of interna-
tional law. If Germany's necessities
can be cited in vindication of the
sinking Of a non-combatant, contra
band-carrying ship without warning,
merely because the Submarine is a
frail vessel capable of being easily
destroyed, the same necessities NAV
justify further encroachments upon
the principles of the laws of the
world.
1t is unquestionably to Germany's
vital interest just at present to pre-
vent the landing in the territory of
her enemies of war munitions. 1t
was to that end that she sank the
Lusitania without warning and de-
stroyed the lives OF hundred. of non
combatants, including many neutrals.
II the end of munitions destruction
Justihes the means, as Germany now
claims in the Lusitania case, why is
she not entitled in international law.
rendered flexible by her necessities.
to attack the source OF such SUD-
Plies IN this country? She might
with equal justice and force, claim
the right to place bombs on Ameri-
can ships laden with ammunition and
other war stores. She might through
her own direct agents seek to de-
stroy by explosion and by FIRE the
American manufacturing plants pro-
duc1ng such materials. And when de-
tected in the act of such ship-sink-
ing and plant destroying work, with
IN the territory OF the United States.
the German government might with
as much equity as in the Lusitania
case plead necessity as justification
and deny the right OF the United
States to demand reparation for
losses inflicted or menaced on its
own soil
The common law does not permit
man to determine his own right
OF seli-defense. When he takes life
he must defend himself in court and
must prove his extreme jeopardy as
justification of homicide. Ger
manys present course is different
She seeks to set up her own new doc
trine of self-defense in amendment
OF international law and demands
that /, be accepted by the United
States for world usage. The great
peril OF the situation is that if this
extension is permitted to stand un-
challenged not only will a new and
dangerous principle be established,
contrary to the laws of humanity,
but way will be opened for the re-
vision OF the entire code of interna-
tional law by one nation, and that
nation one of great military power
and limitless ambition.