5cjxburmr

are not defended” in order to modify the list of places. 364 Rather than a dependent clause, AP Iuses an adjective -- “non-defended” modifying the word “localities.” 365 The difference inEnglish terms seems to reflect this underlying change in the French phrasing.Moreover, the title of the chapter in Hague IX—“Du bombardement des ports, villes,villages, habitations ou bâtiments non défendus” (emphasis added)—uses the same Frenchphrase as is used in AP I, yet the last two words of the title of the chapter in Hague IX havetypically been translated as “undefended” rather than “non-defended.”Thus, the consistency in terminology across the French texts suggests that even thoughthe English terminology has varied slightly, no substantive change has been intended.5.15.1.2 Open Versus Undefended. If “undefended” is simply understood in afactual sense to mean a lack of defenses and “open” is simply understood in a factual sense tomean “open” for entry by the enemy, then distinctions could be drawn between “open” cities and“undefended” cities, because not all cities lacking defenses would be open for entry by enemyforces. For example, a city that did not itself have defenses, but was located deep behind theState’s defensive lines would not be “open” for entry by enemy forces.Most sources, however, use “open” and “undefended” interchangeably. 366 It appears thatthese terms tend to be used interchangeably because both terms generally refer to a specific legalcategory of populated areas that are protected by the law of war from attack. 3675.15.2 “By Whatever Means”. The phrase “by whatever means” was inserted in theHague IV Regulations to clarify that bombing attacks by air were included in the rule. 368364 See HAGUE IV REG. art. 25 (“Il est interdit d’attaquer ou de bombarder, par quelque moyen que ce soit, des villes,villages, habitations, ou bâtiments qui ne sont pas défendus.”) (emphasis added); HAGUE IX art. 1 (“Il est interdit debombarder, par des forces navales, des ports, villes, villages, habitations ou bâtiments, qui ne sont pas défendus.”)(emphasis added).365 See AP I art. 59, 1125 UNTS 299 (“Il est interdit aux Parties au conflit d’attaquer, par quelque moyen que ce soit,des localités non défendues.”) (emphasis added).366 See, e.g., 1958 UK MANUAL 290 (“An undefended or ‘open’ town is a town which is so completely undefendedfrom within or without that the enemy may enter and take possession of it without fighting or incurring casualties.”).367 See R.Y. Jennings, Open Towns, 22 BYIL 258, 260-61 (1945) (“There can be little doubt that the land warfarerules exempted the ‘open and undefended’ town from bombardment because, being undefended, it was, under theconditions of contemporary warfare, open for the enemy to enter and take possession of, or destroy, its militaryresources. This quality of being open to entry by the enemy is the essence of the rule. … It is impossible toconceive of a truly undefended town which is not also open in every sense of the word.”).368 See JAMES BROWN SCOTT, THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCES: I THE CONFERENCE OF 1907104 (1920) (“The Russian and Italian proposals had the same design, and were calculated to supplement Article 25of the 1899 Regulations with a provision securing to undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings absoluteimmunity from all attack or bombardment, ‘even by aid of balloons or other new methods of a similar nature.’ …The delegation of France then observed that the prohibition contemplated by the new Russian text, while entirelyconforming to its opinion as previously expressed, is already contained in the text now in force in Article 25, andthat consequently it is sufficient, if deemed necessary to avoid misunderstanding by rendering its terms precise, toinsert the words ‘by any means whatever’ after ‘to attack or bombard.’”).254