of enemy merchant vessels on the
high seas is unlawful, because these vessels are dedicated to peaceful
trade alone, and have naught to do with hostilities. That peaceful
intercourse, and especially commercial intercourse, between the subjects
of the belligerents cannot be forbidden. And more of the same kind.

If now we examine more closely, we find that there is a sound principle
at the core of Rousseau's doctrine, but that the sentence 'war is merely
a relation between the belligerent states and their contending forces'
is an empty, untenable phrase. The sound central principle is that in
fact, according to modern conceptions, war is a struggle between the
belligerent states, carried on by means of their military and naval
forces, and that their subjects can only be attacked or taken prisoners
so far as they take part in hostilities, and that, if they behave
quietly and peaceably, they are spared harsh treatment as far as
possible. But to assume on that account that a war in which his state
is engaged does not affect a subject, and that he is not brought thereby
into hostile relations to the other side so long as he abstains from any
active part in hostilities--this deals a blow in the face to all the
actual facts of war. Certainly, a peaceable subject does enjoy exemption
from avoidable severities, but he is none the less the object of
coercive measures. If at the outbreak of a war he be resident in the
territory of the enemy, cannot he be expelled? If he contribute to a
loan raised by the enemy, will not his own state punish him for treason?
Is it not the law of many states that if they go to war, an end is put
to peaceful intercourse, and especially commercial intercourse, between
their own subjects and the subjects of the enemy state? Must not the
private person submit to requisitions, pay contributions, endure
limitations on his freedom of movement, and obey the commands of the
hostile occupant? Is not his property on many occasions--for example,
during a siege or a bombardment, or on the field of battle--destroyed
without compensation? Must he not, if his fatherland is completely
conquered and annexed by the enemy, reconcile himself to becoming a
subject of the enemy? Whoever has lived in a district occupied by an
enemy knows what an empty phrase the assertion is, that war is not a
hostile relation between a belligerent state and the subjects of its
enemy. Yet the phrase, nevertheless, wanders from book to book