The Soldier’s Manual
After the 1906 Geneva Convention was concluded, Holland also noticed that developments in the laws of war required issuing a new Manual of Military Law. In October 1906 he wrote to the War Office to offer his services in updatÂing and re-issuing his 1904 Laws and Customs of War to include the terms of the Geneva Convention.[1425] [1426] Unknown to Holland, the need for an update of the Manual of Military Law had already been discussed by staff at the War Office, who had made gestures towards attracting a new compiler: Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, Lassa Oppenheim.99 In reply to Holland, the War Office said that under the terms of the 1906 Geneva Convention, a new handbook was no longer a matter for the General Staff, and the circulation of its provisions was not their responsibility.[1427] [1428] Holland protested that his handÂbook contained much more than the texts of international conventions. He argued it attempted to present a general view of the laws of war on land, distinÂguishing between diplomatically binding and customarily observed rules in a system he described as one of his own â€?invention'.ioi Making little progress with the War Office, Holland drew attention to the collaborative effort involved in the production of the 1904 Laws and Customs of War while insisting that ultiÂmate responsibility for manuals of instruction on the laws of war should rest with an international lawyer. He presented himself as the best possible candiÂdate for the task, as a â€?specialist of the subject', who had been the English memÂber of the committee which produced the Institut de Droifs 1880 Oxford manuÂal.[1429] [1430] [1431] [1432] [1433] Finally, Holland protested that â€?no such book would be existence in this country but for my representations as to the need of it'.ω3 Holland's protests attracted little sympathy, as by 1906 criticism of his Laws and Customs of War had become widespread in the War Office. Professor Holland has no experience of war and therefore approaches these questions purely from an academical point of view. It would be far better that a small committee of soldiers should draw up the revised Handbook more specially as in war it is the Commander in Chief who is charged with the responsibility of interpreting the Articles and his discreÂtion should not be unduly limited by a published commentary written by one who doesn't realise when in the war “the shoe pinches".ω4 Internal memoranda questioned whether his qualifications, â€?however eminent as an international lawyer', were suitable for the guidance of soldiers.ω5 His colleague on the British delegation to the 1906 Geneva Conference, Colonel J. Edmonds, criticised the Laws and Customs of War for its omission of certain topics, such as armistices, which he argued should be clearly laid out for the use of soldiers in the held.ω6 These were the same topics the War Office had originally asked Holland to include in his pamphlet on the laws of war. HowÂever, in devising a code of his own â€?invention', Holland had prepared a pamÂphlet which failed to achieve its primary objective - instructing soldiers during wartime. This was clear from the lack of demand for the Laws and Customs of War, 2,000-odd copies of which remained in the War Office in 1906. As a result, in June 1907 it was decided within the Department of Military Operations, that revisions of the Laws and Customs of War would be underÂtaken by a committee made up of Holland and military officers.[1434] [1435] [1436] [1437] The purpose of the committee was to first determine if there was a need to revise the 1904 Laws and Customs of War. It would then devise material for Chapter fourteen of the new Manual of Military Law and provide a chapter for a new manual entiÂtled the â€?Legal Manual for Field Service'. When Holland discovered that he been appointed as a joint-consultant to the project of revising his 1904 book, rather than as its sole author, he became incensed.ω8 Tired of appeasing him, the Secretary of State for War, Robert Haldane, wrote to Holland in early DeÂcember to inform him his ideas did â€?not agree with those of the Army Council' and advised him instead to publish his book on his own account.ω9 UndeÂterred Holland replied to ask if his opinions were still required for Chapter fourteen of the Manual of Military Law, and whether the War Office would take 500 copies of his book for distribution to members of the army, but again reÂceived no reply. Finally, in December, Holland was notified on Haldane's behalf that to prevent confusion over authoritative manuals, the army could not take any copies of his book. Furthermore, his contributions were no longer required for Chapter fourteen. Holland's involvement with the War Office was now comÂplete. Holland understood his dismissal in terms of the divergence between the military and academic interpretation and emphasis in the laws of war.110 Certainly, the project had illustrated that underlying tension. But he was not helped by an exaggerated sense of his own personal responsibility and authorÂity in regards to the crafting of official legal thought on war. His theoretical inÂterpretation of the law was of no use to the military, which had to be more pragmatic and willing to cut more corners than an academic approach to the topic. The final text produced by the War Office committee, An Exposition of the Laws and Usages of War on Landfor the Guidance of Officers of His Majesty’s Army, was Completedjointly by Lieutenant Colonel Edmonds and Professor Oppenheim in 1909. This was an entirely new book, which bore little resemÂblance to Holland's 1904 Laws and Customs of War. Martial law had lost its prominent position, the order of the articles had been rearranged, and all of Holland's explanatory notes and comments had been removed.[1438] It drew from the 1906 Geneva Convention and 1907 Hague Convention, but framed legal topics around their practical use for soldiers. The original reservations of the Foreign Office towards Holland's original pamphlet and the criticism he reÂceived from the military, both came from a reluctance to being bound by writÂten laws of war. However, as the shift in the Manual of Military Law between 1899 and 1907 showed, it was becoming impossible to ignore the increasing tendency towards codification in the laws of war. 6