CO129-563-16 Sino-Japanese War- attacks on shipping 6-9-1937 - 13-11-1937 — Page 33

33

civilian population. These rules are, of course, unratified,

though actually the only embodiment of defined regulations

on the subject. Moreover, there is much doubt as to their

exact meaning in this connexion.

3.

A further difficulty arises from the fact that a

distinction can be drawn between the lines of communication

themselves, i.e. the actual road, canal or railway, and the

vehicles moving along those lines of communication. Even

if the lines themselves can legitimately be bombed, it may

be argued that direct attacks on the vehicles moving along

the line are not legitimate unless there is every ground for

believing them to be of a military character or carrying milit

personnel or stores. Even in the latter case it would seem

that if the vehicle, though carrying stores capable of

military use is in charge of unarmed civilians, it should at

least he called on to stop, or turn back before being attacked.

4. There is unfortunately complete uncertainty as

to the whole position and there are no sufficiently definite

or recognised rules. In the circumstances, Mr. Eden

considers it desirable to avoid any general statement of

principle or the making of any representations on a basis

of general principle other than the simple and fundamental

rule universally admitted that direct attacks on non-

combatants are in all circumstances illegal. This was the

basis upon which representations were made in the case of Sir Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen.

5.

The position of His Majesty's Government in the Sino-Japanese case is strengthened by the fact that there

is technically no war and that it can consequently be argued that if the Japanese are carrying out a mere "police operation" they have, so to speak, an absolute duty to take care that no damage strictly speaking, even of an incidental kind - is

occasioned/