Recruitment and Departure of Volunteers

  • Manuel R. García-Mora

Abstract

Technically different from military expeditions, which are characterized by some kind of organization, is the practice of private individuals to cross the frontiers of their own state, either singly or in greater numbers, in order to join the forces of a belligerent power or to participate in a foreign civil war. As in the case of military expeditions, however, these persons are nationals of a state which is on peaceful terms with the government against which they enlist, thus posing the interesting question whether the former has the obligation to prevent their departure. Largely because these individuals presumably join the foreign force without the intervention and compulsion of their government, international practice has referred to them as volunteers. But, since recent events unmistakably demonstrate that these volunteers are used by states as instruments of aggression/their impact upon the peace and security of mankind can no longer be ignored.1

Keywords

Hague Convention American Republic British Subject Civil Strife Chinese Intervention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    In October and November, 1956, when Israeli forces invaded Egypt, and France and Great Britain joined them, the Soviet Government threatened to permit “volunteers” to act in behalf of Egypt. See Q. Wright, “Intervention, 1956,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 51, pp. 257, 259 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. J. Padelford, International Law and Diplomacy in the Spanish Civil Strife, p. 74 (1939).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    For a treatment of this matter, see I. Brownlie, “Volunteers and the Law of War and Neutrality,” Int. & Comp. L.Q., Vol. 5, pp. 570–580 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hague Convention No. V, Art. VI. For text, see W. M. Malloy, Treaties, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, Vol. 2, p. 2298 (1910).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hague Convention No. V, Art. IV. For text, see W. M. Malloy, Treaties, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 2298 (1910).Google Scholar
  6. 5a.
    See also A. C. Raja Gabaglia, Guerra Direito Internacional, p. 321 (1949).Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    This was fully discussed in Chapter IV, supra. Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    J. Stone, Legal Controls of International Conflict, p. 384 (1954).Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    Cf. P. E. Corbett, Law and Society in the Relations of States, pp. 242–243 (1951).Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    As quoted in C. C. Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Vol. 3, p. 2306 (2d ed., 1945).Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    D. P. Myers, “Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law,” Am. J. Int. Law, Vol. 54, pp. 632, 656 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 11.
    E. de Vattel, Le Droit des Gens, bk. III, ch. XV, sec. 230 (Transi. by C. G. Fenwick, 1916).Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    This apparently was at one time the position of the United States, as seen in the Rules of Land Warfare, 1917, No. 400, note 1. Quoted in C. C. Hyde, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 2306 n. 3.Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    See the note of Secretary of State Knox to the Mexican Chargé d’Affaires, June 7, 1911. G. H. Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. 7, p. 410 (1943).Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Cf. A. Rougier, Les Guerres Civiles et le Droit des Gens, p. 418 (1903).Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    I. Brownlie, Les Guerres Civiles et le Droit des Gens, p. 579 (1903) op. cit.,Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Cf. H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights, ch. 17 (1950).Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    For text of the Declaration, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 43, p. 127 (1949).Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    For text, see Conference on Central American Affairs, Washington, December 4, 1922 — February 7, 1923, p. 287 (1923).Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    General Treaty of Peace and Amity of Central American States, February 7, 1923. Italics supplied.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    Convention with Other American Republics, February 20, 1928, 46 Stat. 2749, T.S. No. 814. For text, see The International Conferences of American States 1889–1928, p. 435 (J. B. Scott ed., 1931).Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    Convention with Other American Republics, February 20, 1928, 46 Stat. 2749–50. See also L. A. Podesta Costa, “La Revisión de la Convención Interamericana sobre Derechos y Deberes de los Estados en caso de Luchas Civiles,” Inter-Amer. J. Y.B. 1949, p. 9 (1950).Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Pan American Maritime Neutrality Convention, February 20, 1928, 47 Stat. 1889 – 94, T.S. No. 845. For text, see The International Conferences of American States 1889–1928, p. 428 (J. B. Scott ed., 1931).Google Scholar
  24. 23.
    For text, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 34, p. 9 (1940).Google Scholar
  25. 24.
    U.N. Treaty Ser., Vol. 23, I, No. 345.Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    Foreign Relations Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 959 (a) (1952). It would seem that the “Flying Tigers,” organized and recruited by Colonel Chennault in the United States for the war of China against Japan, was a violation of this provision as well as of the neutrality of the United States.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    N. J. Padelford, International Law and Diplomacy in the Spanish Civil Strife, p. 186 (1939).op. cit.,Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    p. 185 (1939) Ibid.,Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    p. 185 (1939) Ibid., n. 25.Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    33 & 34 Vic., c. 90.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    33 & 34 Vic., c. 90, sections 4–7. In 1940, following the League of Nations Resolution, permission was granted to British subjects to enlist in the Finnish Forces fighting against the Soviet Union. See I. Brownlie , pp. 579 (1956)op. cit.,Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    For text, see N. J. Padelford, op. cit., p. 317.Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    For text, see F. Deák and P. C. Jessup, A Collection of Neutrality Laws, Regulations and Treaties of Various Countries, Vol. I, p. 603 (1939).Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    Annual Digest 1935–1937, p. 278 (1941).Google Scholar
  35. 34.
  36. 35.
    For text, see F. Deák and P. C. Jessup, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 566 (1939).Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    Law on Defense of Peace, December 16, 1950. For text, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 46, p. 99(1952).Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    It is conceded, however, that the enactment of this legislation is not due to any duty imposed by international law, but is rather a matter of convenience to avoid external complications. See in this connection L. A. Podestá Costa, Derecho International Público, Vol. 2, pp. 172–173 (3d ed., 1955).Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    P. C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations, p. 200 (1947).Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Professor Julius Stone persuasively argues this point. See J. Stone, (1954) op. cit., p. 389. A. Rougier said sometime ago that though the formation of corps of volunteers is surely due to private initiative and not to state initiative, its importance is such that it is impossible to keep it from the knowledge of the government and when this is the case, it must be prevented.Google Scholar
  41. 39a.
    See A. Rougier, op. cit., p. 418.Google Scholar
  42. 40.
    J. Stone, op. cit., p. 389. For the boldness with which governments act, see note 1, supra. Google Scholar
  43. 41.
    Thus, Article 4 of the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, prepared by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, provides: “Every State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another State, and to prevent the organization within its terrritory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.” International Law Commission, Report, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fourth Session, Supp. No. 10 (A/925), (1949). For text, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., p. 16 (1950).Google Scholar
  44. 42.
    This would be an aggression which is not an armed attack. See “The Question of the Definition of Aggression,” Memorandum submitted by Ricardo J. Alfaro to the International Law Commission of the United Nations, A/CN.4/L.8, May 30, 1951.Google Scholar
  45. 43.
    Note from the Spanish Ambassador to the Secretary of State, U.S. Foreign Rel., 1938, Vol. I, p. 180 (1955).Google Scholar
  46. 44.
    U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, Sup. No. 20, p. 1 (A/1775) (1951). It should be noted, however, that this conclusion could be reached because the original movement of North Korea into the Republic of Korea had already been characterized as an aggression.Google Scholar
  47. 45.
    For text, see U.N. General Assembly Official Records, Sixth Session, Supp. No. 9 (A/1858) (1951); Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 45, pp. 103, 121 (1951).Google Scholar
  48. 46.
    D. P. Myers, op. cit., pp. 632, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 47.
    N. J. Padelford, op. cit., pp. 73–77.Google Scholar
  50. 48.
    In fact, the Armistice Agreement signed on July 27, 1953, was signed between the United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers, on the other. For the text of the Armistice, see Am. J. Int. L. Supp., Vol. 47, p. 186 (1953).Google Scholar
  51. 49.
    For text, see note 4, supra. Google Scholar
  52. 50.
    See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, First Committee, p. 401 (1950).Google Scholar
  53. 61.
    U.N. Charter, art. 2, paragraph 5. This argument was maintained by the Turkish Delegate and supported by other representatives. See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, First Committee, p. 405 (1950).Google Scholar
  54. 52.
    A. P. Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences Concerning The Law and Usages of War, p. 280 (1909).Google Scholar
  55. 53.
    See in this connection the remarks of the Cuban Representative. See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, First Committee, pp. 409–411 (1950).Google Scholar
  56. 54.
    The amount was estimated at 268,000 Chinese troops. Ibid., p. 410.Google Scholar
  57. 55.
    For development of this thesis, see J. Stone, op. cit., p. 411.Google Scholar
  58. 56.
    See U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Third Session, First Committee, 172d Meeting, p. 271 (1948).Google Scholar
  59. 57.
    Quoted in D. P. Myers, op. cit., p. 657.Google Scholar
  60. 58.
    “Volunteers” have been adequately described by the Delegate of Israel to the First Committee of the General Assembly as “war by power of attorney… [which] has become a feature of strategy since the end of the Second World War.” See Complaint of the Union of Burma regarding aggression against it by the Government of the Republic of China, U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Seventh Session, First Committee, 608th Meeting, p. 669 (1953).Google Scholar
  61. 59.
    For some of these views, see U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, First Committee, pp. 415–419 (1950). See also W. W. Kulski, “Soviet Comments on International Law and International Relations,” Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 45, pp. 556, 558 (1951).Google Scholar
  62. 60.
    The International Law Commission of the United Nations has strongly recommended that a definition of aggression should include the sending of volunteers “to engage in hostilities against another State.” For text, see note 45, supra. Google Scholar
  63. 61.
    For text, see note 44, supra. Google Scholar
  64. 62.
    See J. Stone, Aggression and World Order: A Critique of United Nations Theories of Aggression, p. 20, n. 11 (1958).Google Scholar
  65. 63.
    See note 5, supra. Google Scholar
  66. 64.
    L. A. Podestá Costa, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 173.Google Scholar
  67. 65.
    U.N. Charter, art. 2, paragraph 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel R. García-Mora
    • 1
  1. 1.Fordham UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations