Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES]
the See also:Atlantic; and, throughout the See also:war, the knowledge that at any moment a vast See also:fleet of transports might appear off any one of the ports on their enormous seaboard prevented the See also:Con-federates, notwithstanding that the garrisons were reduced to a most dangerous extent, from massing their full strength for a decisive effort
.
The See also:power of striking like " a See also:bolt from the See also:blue " is of the very greatest value in war
.
Surprise was the See also:foundation of almost all the See also:grand strategical combinations of the past, as it will be of those to come
.
The first thought and the last of the
See also:great general is to outwit his adversary, and to strike A"" where he is least expected
.
And the See also:measures he adopts
phlbious
power. to accomplish his purpose are not easily divined
.
What soldier in See also:Europe anticipated See also:Marlborough's See also: But a numerical preponderance, either by See also:land or See also:sea, over all possible hostile combinations, is unattainable, and in See also:default the only See also:sound policy is to take timely and ample precautions against all enterprises which are even remotely possible . There is nothing more to be dreaded in war than the combined labours of a thoroughly well-trained general See also:staff, except the See also:intellect and audacity of a great strategist . The ordinary mind, even if it does Impart- not shrink from great danger, See also:sees no way of surmount- tome of strategy. See also:ing great difficulties; and any operation which involves both vast dangers and vast difficulties it scoffs at as chimerical . The See also:heaven-See also:born strategist, on the other See also:hand, " takes no counsel of his fears." Knowing that success is seldom to be won without incurring risks, he is always greatly daring; and by the skill with which be overcomes all obstacles, and even uses them, as See also:Hannibal and Napoleon did the Alps, and as some great See also:captain of the future may use the sea, to further his purpose and surprise his adversary, he shows his superiority to the See also:common See also:herd . It is repeated ad nauseam that in consequence of the vastly improved means of transmitting See also:information, surprise on a large See also:scale is no longer to be feared . It is to be remembered, however, that the means of concentrating troops and See also:ships are far speedier than of old; that false information can he far more readily distributed; and also, that if there is one thing more certain than another, it is that the great strategist, surprise being still the most deadly of all weapons, will devote the whole force of his intellect to the problem of bringing it about . Nor is it to be disguised that amphibious power is a far more terrible weapon than even in the days when it crushed Napoleon . See also:Commerce has increased by leaps and See also:bounds, and it is no longer confined within territorial limits . The See also:arteries vital to the existence of civilized communities stretch over every ocean . States which in 1800 rated their maritime See also:traffic at a few See also:hundred thousand pounds See also:sterling, value it now at many millions . Others, whose flags, fifty years ago, were almost unknown on the high seas, possess to-See also:day great fleets of merchantmen; and those who fifty years ago were self-dependent, rely in great See also:part, for the See also:maintenance of their prosperity, on their intercourse3 I I with distant continents . There is no great power, and few small ones, to whom the loss of its sea-See also:borne See also:trade would be other than a most deadly See also:blow; and there is no great power that is not far more vulnerable than when Great See also:Britain, single-handed, held her own against a See also:European See also:coalition . Colonies, commercial ports, See also:dockyards, coaling-stations are so many hostages to See also:fortune . See also:Year by year they become more numerous . Year by year, as commercial rivalry grows more acute, they become more intimately See also:bound up with the prosperity and See also:prestige of their See also:mother-countries . And to what end ? To exist as pledges of See also:peace, auspicia melioris aevi, or to fall an easy See also:prey to the power that is supreme at sea and can strike hard on land ? Even the baldest and briefest discussion of the vast subject of war would be incomplete without some reference to the relative merits of professional and unprofessional value of soldiers . Voluntary service still holds its ground in the unprofes-Anglo-Saxon states; and both the See also:United See also:Kingdom atonal and See also:America will have to a great extent to rely, in troops. case of conflicts which tax all their resources, on troops who have neither the practice nor the discipline of their See also:standing armies . What will be the value of these amateurs when pitted against regulars ? Putting the question of moral aside, as leading us too far afield, it is clear that the individual See also:amateur must depend upon his training . If, like the See also:majority of the Boers, he is a See also:good shot, a good See also:scout, a good skirmisher and, if mounted, a good horseman and horsemaster, he is undeniably a most useful soldier . But whether amateurs en masse, that is, when organized into battalions and brigades, are thoroughly trustworthy, depends on the quality of their See also:officers . With good officers, and a certain amount of previous training, there is no See also:reason why bodies of See also:infantry, See also:artillery or mounted infantry, composed entirely of unprofessional soldiers, should not do excellent service in the field . Where they are likely to fail is in discipline; and it would appear that at the beginning of a See also:campaign they are more liable to panic, less resolute in attack, less enduring under heavy losses and great hardships, and much slower in manoeuvre than the professionals . To a certain extent this is inevitable; and it has a most important bearing on the value of the See also:citizen soldier, for the beginning of a campaign is a most See also:critical phase . In See also:short, troops who are only half-trained or have been hastily raised may be a See also:positive danger to the army to which they belong; and the shelter of stout earthworks is the only See also:place for them . Yet the presence of a certain number of experienced fighting men in the ranks may make all the difference; and, in any case, it is probable that battalions composed of unprofessional soldiers, the See also:free citizens of a free and prosperous See also:state, are little if at all inferior, as fighting See also:units, to battalions composed of conscripts . But it is to be understood that the men possess the qualifications referred to above, that the officers are accustomed to command and have a good practical knowledge of their duties in the field . A See also:mob, however patriotic, carrying small-See also:bore rifles is no more likely to hold its own to-day against well-led regulars than did the mob carrying pikes and See also:flint-locks in the past . A small See also:body of resolute civilians, well-armed and skilful marksmen, might easily on their own ground defeat the same number of trained soldiers, especially if the latter were badly led . But in a war of masses, .the power of See also:combination, of rapid and orderly See also:movement, and of See also:tactical manoeuvring is bound to tell . (G.F.R.H.) II . See also:LAWS OF WAR The See also:law of war, in strict usage, does not apply to all armed conflicts, but only to such conflicts as, by the usage of states, Clvnwar constitute war . War exists when the organized armed as distin- forces of one state are opposed to the organized armed gulshed forces of another state . War also exists within the from bounds of a single state when organized armed forces, See also:rebellion. of sufficient power to make the issue doubtful, place themselves in opposition to the armed forces of the existing See also:government . If the disaffected forces are in a state of flagrant inferiority in comparison with those of the existing government there is not a state of war but of rebellion . The combatants in See also:civil war are entitled to treatment in accordance with the law of war . Rebels, as outlaws, have no rights . In the See also:South See also:African campaign (1899-1902) the question arose whether the See also:manifest inferiority of the See also:Boer forces, the See also:possession by the See also:British forces of the seats of government, and their practical occupation of the whole country, did not put an end to the state of war and constitute the Boer fighting forces rebels against a new existing government which had proclaimed See also:annexation of the conquered states . The See also:action of the British commanders is a precedent in favour of the view that the fighting forces of an invaded state are entitled to belligerent rights, though in a state of hopeless inferiority, so See also:long as they remain in the field in organized bands . In this, as in many cases which have formed See also:international usage, the danger of See also:reprisals more than the See also:logic of principles has dictated a different See also:line of conduct from that which the strict principles of law suggested . A somewhat similar, but more complicated situation, arose out of the cession by See also:Spain to the United States of the Philippine Islands . The insurgents being in possession of them at the See also:time, Spain ceded what she did not in fact possess . Thus it has been contended that the position of the insurgents became that of belligerents defending their country against See also:conquest by invading forces . See also:Wars have been classed in different ways—wars of intervention, wars of conquest, wars of defence, wars of See also:independence, just wars, unjust wars, and so on; but the law of war applies to them all without distinction . States do not sit as See also:judges over each other, but treat war, subject to their own See also:interest, as a fact . Interest, however, with the increasing development of international relations is becoming a more important See also:factor in the determination of the attitude of the neutral onlooker (see See also:NEUTRALITY) . In the Chino-See also:Japanese War (1894-95) the Japanese had to decide whether the See also:Chinese were entitled to treatment under the European law of war . See also:Japan had acceded to the " Markomannia " on the ground that they were See also:contraband destined for the armed forces of the existing Haytian government . The " See also:Crete-a-See also:Pierrot " had for some years formed part of the Haytian See also:navy, and was commanded by See also:Admiral Killick, who had been an admiral of that navy . There had been no recognition of the See also:belligerency of the insurgents . No state seems to have made any observations on the incident, which may be taken to be in accordance with current international usage . A well-known instance of a neutral government recognizing insurgent forces as belligerent, in spite of the denial of that See also:character to them by the state against which they British re. are carrying on hostilities, occurred in the North See also:cognition See also:American Civil War . The right asserted by Great "the chit' Britain to recognize the belligerency of the Con- federates. federate forces was based on the contention that British commercial interests were very largely affected by the See also:blockade of the Southern_ ports . It is agreed, however, among jurists that, where the interests of neighbouring states are not affected, the recognition of an insurgent's belligerency is needless interference ? The recognition of belligerency does not See also:entail recognition of the belligerent as a See also:sovereign state . It goes no farther than its immediate purpose . The belligerent armies effect of are lawful combatants, not bandits . Supplies taken recognifrom invaded territory are requisitions, not See also:robbery. con of The belligerent ships of war are lawful cruisers, not belligerpirates; and their captures, made in accordance env, .
with maritime law, are good See also:prize; and their blockades, if effectual, must be respected by neutrals
.
But this does not suffice to invest the belligerent with the attributes of See also:independent See also:sovereignty for such See also:objects as negotiation of See also:treaties, and the accrediting of See also:diplomatic and consular agents
.
This was the attitude of Great Britain and See also:France towards the Confederates in the American Civil War
.
The position. of a See also:vassal state or a See also:colony carrying on See also:foreign war without the consent of the suzerain or See also:parent state might involve still more complicated issues.'
Civilized warfare, the textbooks tell us, is confined, as far as possible, to disablement of the armed forces of the enemy; otherwise war would continue till one of the parties was exterminated
.
" It is with good reason," observes foeices and See also:Vattel, " that this practice has grown into a See also:custom civilians. with the nations of Europe, at least with those that
keep up See also:regular standing armies or bodies of See also:militia
.
The troops alone carry on war, while the See also:rest of the nation remain in peace " (Law of Nations, iii
.
226)
.
See also:Modern notions of patriotism do not, however, view this See also:total and unconditional abstention of the
2 It is also agreed that, as the existence of belligerency imposes burdens and liabilities upon neutral subjects, a state engaged in civil war has no right, in endeavouring to effect its warlike objects, to em-ploy measures against foreign vessels, which, though sanctioned in time of peace, are not recognized in time of war
.
In other words, it cannot enjoy at one and the same moment the rights of both peace and war
.
Thus, in 1861, when the government of New See also:Granada, during a civil war, announced that certain ports would be closed, not by blockade, but by See also:order, See also:Lord See also: In neither case was the order carried out . When in 1885 the See also:President of See also:Colombia, during the existence of civil war, declared several ports to be closed without instituting a blockade, Mr T . F . See also:Bayard, Secretary of State of the United States, in a despatch of 24th See also:April of that year, fully acknowledged the principle of this contention by refusing to acknowledge the See also:closure . In the Servo-Bulgarian War of 1885 the See also:Sultan, though suzerain of See also:Bulgaria, was unmoved by the invasion of his vassal's dominions . Neutral interest . War with See also:Geneva See also:Convention (see below) in 1886, and to the ous peoples . See also:Declaration of See also:Paris (see below) in 1887 . See also:China was a See also:people party to neither, and observed the provisions of neither. japan, nevertheless, as related by her learned judicial advisers, Professors Ariga and Takahashi, observed towards the Chinese forces, combatant and non-combatant, all the rules of European International Law without resorting to the reprisals to which Chinese barbarities provoked her . The position of neutral governments towards insurgent forces is always a delicate one . If they are not recognized as Neutral belligerents by the state against which they are position arrayed, the state in question theoretically accepts towards responsibility for the consequences of their acts in insurgents. respect of neutral states . A neutral state may be satisfied with this responsibility, or it may recognize the See also:bel- ligerent character of the insurgents . If, however, it does not, the insurgent forces cannot exercise rights of war against neutral See also:property without exposing themselves to treatment as outlaws and pirates . A case of such treatment occurred in See also:September 19o2 in connexion with a then pending revolution in Hayti . A See also:German cruiser, the " See also:Panther," treated an insurgent gunbcat, the " Crete-a-Pierrot," as a pirate See also:vessel,' and sank her for having stopped and confiscated arms and See also:ammunition found among the See also:cargo of the German steamer The Times (9th September 1902) . civilian See also:population as any longer possible . They have found, to some extent, expression in the following Articles of the See also:Hague War-Regulations: " See also:Art . 1 . The laws, rights and duties of war apply not only to an army, but also to militia and volunteer See also:corps fulfilling the following conditions: (a) To be commanded by a See also:person responsible for his subordinates; (b) to have a fixed distinctive See also:emblem recognizable at a distance; (c) to carry arms openly; and (d) to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war . In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or See also:form part of it, they are included under the See also:denomination ' army.' " Art . 2 . The population of a territory not under occupation, who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with See also:Article 1, shall be regarded as belligerent if they carry arms openly, and if they respect the laws and customs of war."' The only alteration made by the revised Convention of Nov . 27th, 1907, as compared with that of 1899 is the insertion in Art . 2 of the words in italics . By these provisions, irregular combatants whom both the government of the United States in the American Civil War and the German government in the Franco-German War refused to regard as legitimate belligerents, are now made legally so .2 I The See also:preamble of the Convention refers specially to Articles 1 and 2 in the following terms: " In the view of the High Contracting Parties, these provisions, the drafting of which has been inspired by the See also:desire to diminish the evils of war so far as military necessities permit, are destined to serve as general rules of conduct for belligerents in their relations with each other and with populations; " It has not, however, been possible to agree forthwith on provisions embracing all the circumstances which occur in practice; " On the other hand, it could not be intended by the High Contracting Parties that the cases not provided for should, for want of a written See also:provision, be See also:left to the arbitrary See also:judgment of the military commanders; " Until a more See also:complete See also:code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it expedient to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the See also:protection and See also:empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established among civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and the requirements of the public See also:conscience; " They declare that it is in this sense especially that Articles 1 and 2 of the regulations adopted must be understood." x The instructions for the government of armies of the United States in the field, issued in 1863, provided: " Men or squads of men who commit hostilities, whether by fighting or inroads for destruction or See also:plunder, or by raids of any See also:kind, without See also:commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocation, or with the occasional See also:assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or See also:appearance of soldiers—such men or squads of men are not public enemies, and therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the See also:privilege of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as See also:highway robbers or pirates." See also:Germany seven years later declined to recognize the regular bands of francs-tireurs unless each individual member of them had been personally called out by legal authority, and wore a See also:uniform or badge, irremovable and sufficient to distinguish him at a distance . The older publicists were, on the whole, strongly opposed to the legalization of irregular troops . Hallock settles the question in a See also:summary way by calling those who engage in See also:partisan warfare, robbers and murderers, and declaring that when captured they are to be treated as criminals (International Law, See also:chap. xviii. s . 8) . It is easy to understand the unfavourable opinion of partisan bands usually ex-pressed by the military authorities when the enormous power for damage of modern arms is considered . At the See also:Brussels See also:Conference of 1874 the representatives of the great military See also:Powers of the See also:Continent naturally desired to keep spontaneous movements within the narrowest possible bounds, while the delegates from the secondary states, who have to rely for their defence chiefly upon the patriotism of their people, endeavoured to widen the right of resistance to an invader . Finally the Conference adopted the provisions which were later formally recognized at the Hague Conference (see British State Papers See also:Miscellaneous, No . 1, 1875, pp . 252-257) . It is noteworthy that both at the Brussels and the Hague Conferences the British delegate ranged himself on the See also:side of the smaller states in favour of the recognition of See also:guerrilla bands . At the Hague Conference See also:Sir John Ardagh gave See also:notice of his intention to propose an additional Article, to the effect that nothing in the Regulations should " be considered as tending to diminish or suppress the right which belongs to the population of an invaded country patriotically to oppose the most energetic resistance by every legitimate means." The upshot of this notice was to cause the insertion of a proviso in the preamble of the Connected with the position of private persons in time of war is that of their property in invaded territory, a subject which has often been misunderstood . Assertions Enemy as to its See also:immunity from See also:capture in warfare on land property have been made which are historically inaccurate on invaded and are not borne out by contemporary usage . No territory. doubt contemporary usage is an improvement on older usage . An invading army, before the practice of war became more refined, lived by foraging and pillage in the invaded country; pillage, in fact, being one of the inducements held out to the adventurers who formed part of the fighting forces either as officers or as common soldiers, and this continued down to comparatively See also:recent times . Attenuations followed from the rise of standing and regular armies, and the consequent more marked distinction between soldier and civilian . They have now taken the form of systematic requisitions and contributions, the confining of the right of levying these to generals and commanders-in-See also:chief, the institution of quittances or bills See also:drawn by the belligerent invader on the invaded power and handed in See also:payment to the private persons whose movable belongings have been appropriated or used, and of war indemnities . These are methods of lessening the hardships of war as regards the private property on land of the subjects of belligerent states . Their See also:object and effect have by no means been to arrive at immunity, but to develop an organized See also:system by which damage and losses to individuals, whom the fortune of war has brought into immediate contact with the enemy, are spread over the whole community . There is thus no immunity of private property in warfare on land, and the Hague War-Regulations, far from declaring the contrary, have ratified the right of See also:appropriation of private property in the following Article: " Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army of occupation . They must be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population in the See also:obligation of taking part in military operations against their country . " These requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the See also:Commander in the locality occupied . " The contributions in kind shall, as far as possible, be paid for in ready See also:money; if not, their See also:receipt shall be acknowledged and the payment of the amounts due shall be made as soon as possible " (Article 52) . In another Article provision, moreover, is made for the utilization of property in kind belonging to private persons:-- " An army of occupation can only take possession of the See also:cash, funds and property liable to requisition belonging strictly to the state, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the state which may be used for military operations . " All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the See also:air adapted for the transmission of See also:news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by See also:naval law, depots of arms, and generally, all kinds of ammunition of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and See also:compensation fixed when peace is made." Utilizable neutral See also:rolling-stock is not excepted, Article ig of the Convention on the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in war on land only providing that " The plant of See also:railways coming from neutral states, whether the property of those states, or of companies, or of private persons, and recognizable as such, shall be sent back as soon as possible to the country of origin." Enemy property at sea is subject to different rules from those which govern it on land . It is liable to capture and See also:confiscation wherever found on the high seas or in enemy See also:waters . The United States has made strenuous Enemy efforts to get this See also:rule of maritime warfare altered, at sea. and immunity from capture accepted as the law of the sea . It has even made this a See also:condition of its See also:accession to the Declaration of Paris (see NEUTRALITY) . But thus far other powers have shown no disposition to agree to any alteration . At the Hague Conferences the United States raised the question again, but thus far all that has been done has been to ratify Convention-denying the right of military commanders to See also:act See also:accord- ing to their own arbitrary judgment (See also:Parliamentary Papers, No . 1, 1899, c . 9534)• existing exemptions . The considerations which have led See also:man-kind to systematize the practice of war in regard to private property on land do not arise in the same form in connexion with private property at sea . Here there is no question of seizing the live stock, or the bedding, or the See also:food, or the utensils of the private citizen . If See also:ship and cargo are captured, it may be hard upon the See also:merchant, but such captures do not directly deprive him of the necessaries of See also:life . Yet, as in the case of war on land, its hardships have been attenuated, and progress has been made by developing a more systematic See also:procedure of capture of private property at sea . Thus exemption from capture is now allowed by belligerents to enemy merchant ships which, at the outbreak of war, are on the way to one of their ports, and they also allow enemy merchantmen in their ports at its outbreak a certain time to leave them . This is confirmed by the Hague Convention of 1907 on the status of enemy ships on the outbreak of hostilities . A somewhat similar practice exists as regards pursuit of merchant ships which happen to be in a neutral See also:port at the same time with an enemy cruiser . Under the Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war (Art . 16), this, too, is confirmed . Lastly, there has grown up, on grounds similar to those which have led to the See also:indulgence shown to private property on land, a now generally recognized immunity from capture of small vessels engaged in the See also:coast See also:fisheries, provided they are in no See also:wise made to serve the purposes of war, which also has been duly confirmed in the Hague Conventions of 1907 by Art . 3 of the convention relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war . This has all been done with the object of making the operations of war systematic, and enabling the private citizen to estimate his risks and take the necessary precautions to avoid capture, and of restricting acts of war to the purpose of bringing it to a speedy conclusion . We have seen that the only immunity of private property yet known to the laws of war is a limited one at sea . War, by its very nature, seems to prevent the growth of any such immunity . The tendency in war on land has been to spread its effects over the whole community, to keep a faithful See also:record on both sides of all confiscations, appropriations and services enforced against private citizens; beyond this, protection has not yet been extended . There is good reason for this . The object of each belligerent being to break the enemy's power and force him to See also:sue for peace, it may not be enough to defeat him in the open field; it may be necessary to prevent him from repairing his loss both in men and in the munitions of war . This may imply crippling his material resources, trade and manufactures . It has been contended that " to capture at sea raw materials used in the manufacturing See also:industry of a belligerent state, or products on the saie of which its prosperity, and therefore its taxable See also:sources depend, is necessarily one of the objects, and one of the least cruel, which the belligerents pursue . To capture the merchant vessels which carry these goods, and even to keep the See also:seamen navigating them prisoners, is to prevent the employment of the ships by the enemy as transports or cruisers, and the repairing from among the seamen of the See also:mercantile marine of losses of men in the See also:official navy." 1 The question of reform of the existing practice would naturally be viewed in different countries according to their respective interests . The United States has obviously an interest in the exemption of its merchant vessels and cargoes from capture, a small official navy being sufficient for the assertion of its ascendancy on the American continent . It may also be presumed to be in the interest of See also:Italy, who, in a treaty with the United States in 1871, provided for mutual recognition of the exemption . In the Austro-Prussian war of 1866 the principle of inviolability was adhered to by both parties . Germany proclaimed the same principle in 1870, but afterwards abandoned it . There is a strong movement in Great Britain in favour of the general See also:adoption of immunity . Whether it may now be expedient for her to agree to such immunity is an open question . It is 1 See also:Barclay, " Proposed Immunity of Private Property at Sea from Capture by Enemy," Law Quarterly See also:Review (See also:January 1900).quite conceivable, however, that different considerations would weigh with her in a war with the United States from those which would arise in a war with France or Germany . In the case of the United States it might be in the interest of both parties to localize the operations of war, and to interfere as little as possible, perhaps for the See also:joint exclusion of neutral vessels, with the traffic across the Atlantic . In the case of a war with France or Germany, Great Britain might consider that the closing of the high sea to all traffic by the merchantmen of the enemy would be very much in her own interest . The converse subject of the treatment of subjects of the one belligerent who remain in the country of the other belligerent also was not dealt with at the Hague . British practice in this See also:matter has always been indulgent, the protection to the persons and property of non-combatant enemies on British See also:soil dating back to Magna Carta (s . 48), and this is still the law of See also:England . The practice on the continent of Europe varies according to circumstances, to which no doubt, in the event of the invasion of Great Britain, British practice would also have to adapt itself . The Hague War-Regulations See also:deal fully with the treatment of prisoners, and though they add nothing to existing practice, such treatment is no longer in the discretion of,v:r rs of war of the signatory Powers, but is binding on them . They provide as follows: Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile government, but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them . They must be humanely treated . All their See also:personal belongings, except arms, horses and military papers, remain their property (Article |