5cjxburmr

XII – Non-Hostile Relations Between BelligerentsChapter Contents12.1 Introduction12.2 Principle of Good Faith in Non-Hostile Relations12.3 Methods for Communication Between Belligerents12.4 The White Flag of Truce to Initiate Negotiations12.5 Rules for Parlementaires12.6 Military Passports, Safe-Conducts, and Safeguards12.7 Cartels12.8 Capitulations – Negotiated Instruments of Surrender12.9 Capitulations – Subjects Usually Addressed12.10 Capitulations – Violations and Denunciation12.11 Armistices and Other Cease-Fire Agreements12.12 Armistices – Subjects Usually Addressed12.13 Armistices – Violations and Denunciation12.14 U.N. Security Council Cease-Fires12.1 INTRODUCTIONThis Chapter addresses the legal principles for non-hostile relations between belligerentsand the basic mechanisms for implementing them.More specifically, this Chapter addresses the rules for the protection of certain personnelengaged in non-hostile relations, such as parlementaires, and persons protected by militarypassports, safe-conducts, or safeguards. In addition, this Chapter addresses certain agreementsbetween opposing belligerents, such as cartels, capitulations, and armistices.12.1.1 Traditional Rule of Non-Intercourse During War. The traditional rule duringinternational armed conflict is that, even without any special proclamation, all intercoursebetween the territories occupied by belligerent forces, including communication, transportation,and commerce, would cease. 1The traditional rule of non-intercourse reflects a belligerent’s authority under the law ofwar to limit and regulate intercourse between persons and territory controlled by or belonging tothat belligerent and persons and territory controlled by or belonging to the enemy. 2 For example,1 See 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 449 (“All intercourse between the territories occupied by belligerentarmies, whether by traffic, communication, travel, or in any other way, ceases. This is the general rule to beobserved without special proclamation.”); LIEBER CODE art. 86 (“All intercourse between the territories occupied bybelligerent armies, whether by traffic, by letter, by travel, or in any other way, ceases. This is the general rule, to beobserved without special proclamation.”).2 See Hamilton v. Dillin, 88 U.S. 73, 97 (1874) (“As before stated, the power of the government to impose suchconditions upon commercial intercourse with an enemy in time of war as it sees fit is undoubted. It is a powerwhich every other government in the world claims and exercises, and which belongs to the government of theUnited States as incident to the power to declare war and to carry it on to a successful termination. We regard the822