5cjxburmr

communicate with his or her superiors, under the law of war he or she may assume that he or shehas authority to surrender his or her forces or position. 122However, a commanding officer’s powers generally do not extend beyond the forces andterritory under his or her command. 123 Thus, a commander may not surrender forces that are notunder his or her command. Similarly, unless so authorized by his or her government, acommander lacks the authority to bind his or her government to a permanent cession of the placeor places under his or her command, to surrender sovereignty over territory, or to agree to otherterms of a political nature or such as will take effect after the termination of hostilities. 124However, capitulation agreements that have been concluded by political authorities may includesuch terms. 125A State is not bound by the terms of a capitulation agreement that it has not authorized itscommanders to conclude and may repudiate such terms. 126 For example, a State would not bebound to honor political conditions accepted by a capitulating commander or by a commanderaccepting capitulation, if those commanders lack such authority. 12712.8.2.1 Surrenders Contrary to Domestic Law or Superior Orders. The fact thata commander surrenders in violation of orders or the law of his or her own State does not impair122 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 472 (“In the case of a commander of a military force of the United States,if continued battle has become impossible and he cannot communicate with his superiors, these facts will constituteproper authority to surrender.”).123 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 472 (“A commanding officer’s powers do not extend beyond the forcesand territory under his command.”); 1958 UK MANUAL 466 (“The competence of a commander to acceptconditions of capitulation is limited to the troops immediately under his command and does not necessarily extend todetached forces.”).124 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 472 (“Unless so authorized by his government, he does not possess powerto bind his government to a permanent cession of the place or places under his command, or to any surrender ofsovereignty over territory, or to any cessation of hostilities in a district beyond his command, or to agree to terms ofa political nature or such as will take effect after the termination of hostilities.”); Trial of Hans Albin Rauter,Judgment, XIV U.N. LAW REPORTS 89, 125 (Netherlands Special Court in ’S-Gravenhage (The Hague), May 4,1948) (“According to international law a capitulation treaty is a pact between commanders of belligerent forces forthe surrender of certain troops or certain parts of the country, towns or fortresses, and as such must be scrupulouslyfulfilled; the commander who concludes such a pact cannot, however, be considered empowered to bind hisgovernment to a permanent cession of territory, to a cessation of hostilities in territories which do not come underhis command or, in general, to provisions of a political nature; such provisions are binding in a capitulation treatyonly if they are ratified by the governments of both belligerents.”).125 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 473 (“The surrender of a place or force may also be arranged by thepolitical authorities of the belligerents without the intervention of the military authorities. In this case thecapitulation may contain other than military stipulations.”).126 1958 UK MANUAL 467 (“Similarly, the competence of a commander to grant conditions of capitulation islimited to those the fulfilment of which depends entirely upon the forces under his command. If he agrees, withoutthe instruction of his government, to conditions the granting of which is not implied in his powers, or the fulfilmentof which depends upon forces other than his own, and upon superior officers, the conditions may be repudiated.”).127 WINTHROP, MILITARY LAW & PRECEDENTS 787 (“A capitulation is of course subject to be disapproved andannulled by the Government of either commander. Thus the Sherman-Johnston capitulation of April, 1865, wasrepudiated by the Government at Washington because of its assuming to deal with political issues.”).841