CIVIL WAR, INSURRECTIONS AND MOB VIOLENCE 3g

from a wrongful act or omission of the revolutionists committed at any
time after the inception of the revolution.’’!

(d) If the damages have not been caused by the insurgents, but by
government officers or agents in their efforts to quell the insurrection, the
general rule is that the State is not responsible, although this is subject to
certain conditions and exceptions. The havoc of war is considered to be an
inexorable calamity. It is in this case that the doctrine of zis major is
fully applicable. Among the opinions stated in the replies of the governments
 to the inquiry of the Preparatory Committee, one of them is unique,
and that is the view of the Government of Switzerland to the effect
that damage caused by the armed forces of the Government in the suppression
 of revolts are the consequence of measures adopted by the authorities
for the public welfare, but that it would be only the just duty of the community
 to indemnify private persons for the actual damage sustained by
them in the course of the operations. This duty would not cover indirect
damage, because this would be impractical. This view is worthy of careful
consideration as regards the duty of the community towards all of its members
 irrespective of their nationality. This could be further amplified to
cover all damages resulting from war, within a reasonable limit acceptable to
the States, and provided that this would cover the enforcement of a principle
of social welfare for the benefit of all inhabitants without discrimination.
However, the difficulties of a provision of this nature in an international
convention, could not very well be disregarded. The fact remains that, with
the exception of destruction and injuries caused to persons or property
in the course of military operations and especially in battle, all the acts that
imply an enrichment of the State, such as requisitions, among others, are of
course subject to the obligation to allow due compensation.
(e) Upon drafting a formula to cover responsibility in respect of
damage caused under these circumstances, the danger and inconvenience entailed
 by the use of misleading terms should be constantly borne in mind.
The reply of the Government of Great Britain to the inquiry in question sets
forth that the State is not responsible for damage unintentionally inflicted
by the authorities or the armed forces during the course of the suppression:
“Compensation must be paid for the property of a foreigner appropriated
or intentionally destroyed in the course of such operations, but not for
property destroyed or injured unintentionally.” This formula could not be
more misleading. The elements of will or intention as regards the causing
of the damage have no application in this case. The commander of an army
may have a manufacturing plant in which the rebels are barricaded intentionally
 destroyed. The act, however, would be a genuine military opera-*

 Harvard Law School--Research in International Law.