Evening star., 1937-08-21
When Is a War?

W q w al
All sail and no rudder makes for poor
navigation. That is the dilemma of
President Roosevelt and Secretary of
State Hull in deciding whether or not
to invoke the neutrality act in the Sino-
japanese conflict. They have plenty of
canvas but no steering gear.
The neutrality act passed last April
contains extensive provisions for pres
ervation of peace for America, but it has
fallacious foundation, namely, that
state of war, existence of which the
President is TO proclaim when he sees
fit, is capable at all times of accurate
determination. 1t is a characteristic de-
feet in all international relations since
the World War, the lack of standards by
which to judge the conduct of nations.
Respect for the law of nations has
given way to a chaotic relationship which
is the abnegation of international con-
troll. After 1918 there was little left of
the common law of nations by which
their relationships.
Perhaps the point of greatest diver
gence was in the conception of war itself
Wars formerly were so clearly revealed
either in formal declarations or in sew
erance of diplomatic relations that there
could be no doubt of the official hostility
of each party for the other. The status
of belGgerent gave a nation certain
rights in international law-such as the
right of blockade and visit and search
which it would not posses without the
legal condition of war.
After the holocaust of 19l4l9l8 the
status of belligerent largely lost its de-
STABILITY for nations bent upon aggres-
sion, for the existence of warfare now
carries with 1t the complications of
League of Nations procedure and pos
sible invocation of the Kellogg pact for
the outlawry of war
The question now arises: when does
war exist? Does 1t arise merely from the
fact of armed conflict? Or does it re-
quire the active desire, and some affirma-
tive action, on the part OF the partici-
pants? Furthermore, may third nation,
in the absence Of such desire by the
parties to armed conflict, declare them to
be at war for the purpose of bringing into
force wartime rights as neutrals and to
impose upon belligerents wartime obli-
cations as well as to apply their own
legislation which only affects belligerents?
In other words, might not Japan or
China, or both, have sound grounds for
protest against application to them of a
law which concerns only nations at war,
when their intention is not so to be?
In the present instance Toxic has
ordered It's Marking Embassy closed, and
its charge daffaires is reported to have
left China, but China still maintains her
diplomatic mission in Toxic. In the de-
parture of the japanese diplomats, how
ever, there is no element of severance of
diplomatic relations and presumably
Japanese officials are merely fleeing for
their personal safety. If Japan had in
tended to sever diplomatic relations she
would have handed the Chinese Ambas-
sador his passport.
How then can it be considered that
legal war exists in such a situation. al
though Chinese and foreign residents of
Shanghai are being blasted out of their
homes and places of business, and being
killed and wounded; Chinese aviators are
bombing japanese warships and a jap
anese army is being landed in Shanghai.
II such conflict does not qualify for the
status of war on what basis may the
Neutrality Act be invoked? OF course.
the possibility must always be recognized
that strife may become so destructive as
to warrant all neutrals imposing upon the
parties the status of belligerents regard
less of the will of the latter.
Certainly there is no question yet of
failure of the Act for its invocation at
this stage might not easily be defended.
Whether it is to be invoked awaits a more
definite indication from Japan and China
of whether they are fighting a war to a
finish or merely engaging in momentary
armed unpleasantness.