In article ,
John Schilling wrote:
I'm not sure what violating treaties has to do with it. It's not a
violation of a treaty to deliberately sink a ship or shoot down an
aircraft, but it's clearly an act of war.

It's also pretty clearly a good way to get someone killed; even if
the sinking happnes to occur without casualties, it's a pretty clear
indication that you were *willing* to kill people.

Remember that the "people are more important than property" belief is
mostly fairly recent. A great many wars took place, and a great many
early precedents were set, back when people were generally considered...
well... property, and mostly not particularly valuable property either.
Much of the European conquest of the world took place at a time when any
long sea voyage -- even one that encountered no armed opposition -- could
reasonably be expected to kill a majority of the ship's crew. (Magellan's
expedition started with three ships swarming with men, and ended with one
ship limping into port with a minimal crew, and nobody cared... because
apart from its historical significance, the spices in the hold of that one
ship made the whole venture highly profitable.)

If we're considering modern public opinion in more-or-less-free countries,
then death or reckless endangerment certainly ranks higher than property
damage, but if we're talking international legal precedent, no such clear
priority applies.

Are there any historical examples of a war where casus belli was
claimed on the basis of property damage alone?

Lots, especially if you include theft of property as a form of property
damage. The Trojan War -- to the extent that it is historical -- started
over the theft of a particularly valuable piece of (human) property. The
official casus belli of the War of 1812 was interference with US commerce.
(As I understand it, the heavy emphasis on impressment of US sailors as
*the* issue is modern; back then, seizure of ships and cargo was at least
equally important.) The Falklands War started entirely over property --
Argentina's grievance was always over who was the landlord of the islands,
their attempt to settle the matter was carried out without violence, and
Britain very clearly classed it as a casus belli.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |