Some Questions of International Law. existence of war as a fact and prescribes certain rules and regulations which affect the rights and duties of neutrals ami belligerents during its continuance. The justice of war in general or of a certain war in particular are questions of the gravest importance and the most vital interest, but they belong to the domain of international ethics or morality rather than to that of International Law.1 In order to justify the propriety of the Japanese attack upon the Russian fleets from the standpoint of International Law, it is enough for us to show that all peaceful or diplomatic relations between Japan and Russia had been severed a sufficient time be fore the attack, and under such circum stances as to guard against all reasonable danger of a surprise. It must have been reasonably clear to all concerned for months prior to the outbreak of hostilities that war was inevitable unless important concessions should be effected or a compromise agreed upon which neither State seemed willing to make. This fact must have been realized at St. Petersburg as well as at Tokio, and the long Russian delays- in answering the Japanese notes during the period of negotia1 Bluntschli (Droit International Codifc') 5th e(J., § 515, p. 294) expresses a different view. He says, "War is just when International Law authorizes recourse to arms: unuist when it is contrary to the principles of law." He adds in a note, "this principle is not only a rule of morality, it is a true principle of law." He admits, how ever, that it has no créât practical value, inas much as each of the belligerents is sure to affirm the justice of its cause, and because there is no judge to pronounce upon the value of these as sertions. But, as Funck-Bretano ijt Sorel <Pr<'cis, p. 232, 2nd ed.) says, "it is only an abuse of words, in relying upon the law of nations to qualify wars as just or unjust. The law of nations only con siders States in their relations with each other. . . . It is with wars between States as with com bats between men: they only commence when all notion of reciprocal right and justice ceases. . . '. War is a political act. ..." 2 The Japanese proposal of August 12, 190.1, was not answered by a counter-proposal until October 3d. The answer to the Japanese pro posal of October 3Oth was debyed until Decem ber II, 1903. For a history rf the negothtions, see London Times (weekly ed.) for February 12, 1904.
309
lions which preceded the outbreak of hosti lities can hardly be explained on any other theory than that Russia desired time for the completion of her military preparations and the concentration of her land and naval forces.11 The Russian reply to the last Japan ese note of Jan. 13, 1904, had not been re ceived by February 6th in spite of a request on the part of the Japanese Government for a prompt response on account of the gravity of the situation, and in spite of the repeated requests for an answer on the part of the M. Kurino, the Japanese minister at St. Peters burg.4 Under these circumstances the only mat ter for surprise is that the Japanese Govern ment should have delayed so k>ng (unless it, too, required more time for military prepara tions), an:! it is therefore no cause for ad verse criticism that diplomatic relations with Russia were abruptly severed on Feb. 6th. The Russian Government was informed that "the imperial Government (of Japan) have no other alternative than to terminate the present futile negotiations. In adopting this course the Imperial Government reserve to themselves the right to take such independent action as they may deem best to consolidate and defend their menaced position, as well as to protect their established rights and legiti mate interests."5 This was undoubtedly a suf ficient declaration of intention on the part of the Japanese Government, and if the Rus sian fleet or the Rusian Government allowed themselves to be surprised after such a plain, albeit diplomatic, intimation of hostile-inten3 For evidence on this head, see the Japanese reply to the Russian charges in London Times (weekly ed.) for March 4, 1904. 4 See the Japanese statement of the case in the London Times (weekly ed.) for Feb. 12. 1004. So far as we are aware, the Russian Government has not denied these facts. The burden of the Russian comolaint is that Japan did not await the receipt of the last Russian note which, it is al leged, was on the way to Tokio at the moment of the rupture of diplomatic negotiations; but it is not alleged that this note conceded any appre ciable portion of the Japanese demands. 5 See N. Y. Times for Feb. 13, 1904.
