General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: capitulation according maritime law
Posted by:
ThomasHorton
()
Date: March 23, 2010 05:47PM
This is a complicated question especially when considered during WWII (1939-1945)
The applicable treaty would be Manual of the Laws of Naval War. Oxford, 9 August 1913. A copy of which can be found in this link
[www.icrc.org]
The article you would be interested in would be article 17 which is copied here in its entirety.
"Art. 17. It is also forbidden:
(1) To kill or to wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion;
(2) To sink a ship which has surrendered, before having taken off the crew;
(3) To declare that no quarter will be given. "
This being posted, it still does not fully answer your question.
Article 31 of the 1913 treaty allows belligerent states to destroy warships of the enemy. The only exception is covered in article 17 when it comes to getting the crew off the ship.
In your example, one of the key factors would be when does a submarine cease to be a military threat? Simply being on the surface does not remove a submarine from being a viable military threat.
The crew abandoning ship would be prima facie evidence that the crew no longer poses a military threat, but this would not apply to the submarine itself.
So under Article 17, the surface ship would not be able to attack the crew in the water as long as none of the crew either attacks or defends themselves in a military matter.
As to the surface ship firing on the surfaced submarine; if the surface ship has a reasonable suspicion that the surfaced submarine constitutes a military threat (no matter how pathetic), the surfaced submarine would remain a viable military target.
It would be difficult for a submarine to present evidence that it no longer is a military threat. Even if the submarine were to “unman†the deck gun and other deck weapons, the threat of the torpedo still remains unknown. It would not be unreasonable for a commander of a surface ship to conclude that a surfaced submarine might still remain a military threat using torpedoes.
If the submarine were to communicate that it is surrendering , by signal, striking colours, or radio, a difficult situation occurs.
The commander of the surface ship needs to protect his ship from perfidious actions (submarine surrendering and then attacking) which is forbidden under article 15 of the 1913 treaty.
It is important to recognize that while perfidious actions are forbidden, ruses are not. There is nothing wrong with a submarine surfacing, having some of the crew abandon ship and then have the submarine attack the surface ship. As long as the submarine does not, under article 15, commit a perfidious act.
The problem is that in the heat of battle, how long are belligerents expected to take to determine whether an act is perfidious or a ruse? No commander is going to risk his ship waiting for this determination.
Well all this rambling of mine does have a point, and let’s reference back to your specific questions
“a U-Boat in WWII go up and the crew abandon directly the boat and jump in the water.
(1) At which moment had the U-Boat capitulated according the maritime law ?
(2) At which moment must be ending the fire from the destroyers ?â€
The answer to question 1 is that a U-Boat could continue to be a valid military target unless it has signaled its surrender. However, the maritime rules in place at that time do not prevent a belligerent from sinking a ship after the crew has abandoned it. So for all practical purposes, the U-Boat is only protected until the crew has had reasonable time to abandon ship. After that time (undefined) any crew electing to remain on the ship would be prima facie evidence that the submarine continues to be a valid military target.
The answer to question 2 is that legally firing can continue until the submarine formally communicated its surrender. After that, as long as the submarine takes no action that can be considered offensive or defensive (it is important to recognize that defensive actions invalidate surrender), The destroyer should avoid any military action that places the abandoning crew in danger.
Legal hairs can be split concerning firing weapons aimed at the submarine as being different from firing weapons aimed at the crew. That is for the lawyers to get rich off of.
In any case, simply the act of a submarine surfacing and some of the crew jumping overboard is not going to put the submarine in any protected status. Most likely, the submarine would be shelled immediately upon surfacing (and rightly so) and would be destroyed before any formal surrender signal could be given.
Any destroyer commander who would hold off attacking a surfacing submarine would be, rightly, relieved of his command.
Treaty law is, as you can see, complicated and complex.
The applicable treaty would be Manual of the Laws of Naval War. Oxford, 9 August 1913. A copy of which can be found in this link
[www.icrc.org]
The article you would be interested in would be article 17 which is copied here in its entirety.
"Art. 17. It is also forbidden:
(1) To kill or to wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defense, has surrendered at discretion;
(2) To sink a ship which has surrendered, before having taken off the crew;
(3) To declare that no quarter will be given. "
This being posted, it still does not fully answer your question.
Article 31 of the 1913 treaty allows belligerent states to destroy warships of the enemy. The only exception is covered in article 17 when it comes to getting the crew off the ship.
In your example, one of the key factors would be when does a submarine cease to be a military threat? Simply being on the surface does not remove a submarine from being a viable military threat.
The crew abandoning ship would be prima facie evidence that the crew no longer poses a military threat, but this would not apply to the submarine itself.
So under Article 17, the surface ship would not be able to attack the crew in the water as long as none of the crew either attacks or defends themselves in a military matter.
As to the surface ship firing on the surfaced submarine; if the surface ship has a reasonable suspicion that the surfaced submarine constitutes a military threat (no matter how pathetic), the surfaced submarine would remain a viable military target.
It would be difficult for a submarine to present evidence that it no longer is a military threat. Even if the submarine were to “unman†the deck gun and other deck weapons, the threat of the torpedo still remains unknown. It would not be unreasonable for a commander of a surface ship to conclude that a surfaced submarine might still remain a military threat using torpedoes.
If the submarine were to communicate that it is surrendering , by signal, striking colours, or radio, a difficult situation occurs.
The commander of the surface ship needs to protect his ship from perfidious actions (submarine surrendering and then attacking) which is forbidden under article 15 of the 1913 treaty.
It is important to recognize that while perfidious actions are forbidden, ruses are not. There is nothing wrong with a submarine surfacing, having some of the crew abandon ship and then have the submarine attack the surface ship. As long as the submarine does not, under article 15, commit a perfidious act.
The problem is that in the heat of battle, how long are belligerents expected to take to determine whether an act is perfidious or a ruse? No commander is going to risk his ship waiting for this determination.
Well all this rambling of mine does have a point, and let’s reference back to your specific questions
“a U-Boat in WWII go up and the crew abandon directly the boat and jump in the water.
(1) At which moment had the U-Boat capitulated according the maritime law ?
(2) At which moment must be ending the fire from the destroyers ?â€
The answer to question 1 is that a U-Boat could continue to be a valid military target unless it has signaled its surrender. However, the maritime rules in place at that time do not prevent a belligerent from sinking a ship after the crew has abandoned it. So for all practical purposes, the U-Boat is only protected until the crew has had reasonable time to abandon ship. After that time (undefined) any crew electing to remain on the ship would be prima facie evidence that the submarine continues to be a valid military target.
The answer to question 2 is that legally firing can continue until the submarine formally communicated its surrender. After that, as long as the submarine takes no action that can be considered offensive or defensive (it is important to recognize that defensive actions invalidate surrender), The destroyer should avoid any military action that places the abandoning crew in danger.
Legal hairs can be split concerning firing weapons aimed at the submarine as being different from firing weapons aimed at the crew. That is for the lawyers to get rich off of.
In any case, simply the act of a submarine surfacing and some of the crew jumping overboard is not going to put the submarine in any protected status. Most likely, the submarine would be shelled immediately upon surfacing (and rightly so) and would be destroyed before any formal surrender signal could be given.
Any destroyer commander who would hold off attacking a surfacing submarine would be, rightly, relieved of his command.
Treaty law is, as you can see, complicated and complex.
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
capitulation according maritime law
|
Elster | 03/18/2010 07:55PM |
|
Re: capitulation according maritime law
|
ThomasHorton | 03/23/2010 05:47PM |