[Footnote 78: Ends of war must likewise not be confounded with aims of land and sea warfare; see below, §§ 103 and 173.]
[Footnote 79: See Bluntschli, § 536; Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. p. 364; Rivier, II. p. 219.]
Hall, § 17--Westlake, _Chapters_, pp. 232-235--Maine, pp. 122-159--Phillimore, III. § 50--Taylor, § 470--Walker, _History_, I. §§ 106-108--Heffter, § 119--Lueder in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 253-333--Ullmann, §§ 167 and 170--Bonfils, Nos. 1006-1013--Despagnet, Nos. 508-510--Pradier-Fodéré, VIII. Nos. 3212-3213--Rivier, II. pp. 238-242--Nys, III. pp. 160-164--Calvo, IV. §§ 1897-1898--Fiore, III. Nos. 1244-1260--Martens, II. § 107--Longuet, p. 12--Bordwell, pp. 100-196--Spaight, pp. 1-19--_Kriegsbrauch_, p. 2--_Land Warfare_, §§ 1-7--Holland, _Studies_, pp. 40-96.
§ 67. Laws of War are the rules of the Law of Nations respecting warfare. The roots of the present Laws of War are to be traced back to practices of belligerents which arose and grew gradually during the latter part of the Middle Ages. The unsparing cruelty of the war practices during the greater part of the Middle Ages began gradually to be modified through the influence of Christianity and chivalry. And although these practices were cruel enough during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, they were mild compared with those of still earlier times. Decided progress was made during the eighteenth, and again during the nineteenth century, after the close of the Napoleonic wars, especially in the years from 1850 to 1900. The laws of war evolved in this way: isolated milder practices became by-and-by usages, so-called _usus in bello_, manner of warfare, _Kriegs-Manier_, and these usages through custom and treaties turned into legal rules. And this evolution is constantly going on, for, besides the recognised Laws of War, there are usages in existence which have a tendency to become gradually legal rules of warfare. The whole growth of the laws and usages of war is determined by three principles. There is, first, the principle that a belligerent should be justified in applying any amount and any kind of force which is necessary for the realisation of the purpose of war--namely, the overpowering of the opponent. There is, secondly, the principle of humanity at work, which says that all such kinds and degrees of violence as are not necessary for the overpowering of the opponent should not be permitted to a belligerent. And, thirdly and lastly, there is at work the principle of chivalry which arose in the Middle Ages and introduced a certain amount of fairness in offence and defence, and a certain mutual respect. And, in contradistinction to the savage cruelty of former times, belligerents have in modern times come to the conviction that the realisation of the purpose of war is in no way hampered by indulgence shown to the wounded, the prisoners, and the private individuals who do not take part in the fighting. Thus the influence of the principle of humanity has been and is still enormous upon the practice of warfare. And the methods of warfare, although by the nature of war to a certain degree cruel and unsparing, become less cruel and more humane every day. But it must be emphasised that the whole evolution of the laws and usages of war could not have taken place but for the institution of standing armies, which dates from the fifteenth century. The humanising of the practices of war would have been impossible without the discipline of standing armies; and the important distinction between members of armed forces and private individuals could not have arisen without the existence of standing armies.