Civilized nations, in their efforts to ameliorate the cruel conditions of rogue regimes and dictatorships, have consented to allow an international toleration of a moral wrong by virtue of the natural law. This is not strictly right though it is often so denominated even without the excuse of it being a less evil than another to be avoided. The innocents who are oppressed, whose injust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way, have the right to resist and charity calls for international assistance. The right to resist cannot be a prerogative of any subordinate power in the state or a section of the population, as that would upset the peace and order of the whole state. With the supreme power, the majority, lies also the judicial authority to determine when revolution is necessary and what is the proportionate measure of damage it may therein inflict. Without this judicial faculty, the right of revolution would be in vain. When it comes to punishment, there is no other place to put it but in the hands of the state. Though the state may entrust this exercise to an international arbiter, it is not bound to do so. The killing of the wounded or prisoners, who have thereby ceased to be combatants, and have rendered submission, is not only not necessary but beyond the limits of right because of submission, and common charity requires that they be properly cared for. The loss of one human life outweighs the mere offended vanity of a people. 'All is fair in love ands war' cannot be taken seriously as it runs counter to right reason, natural law and justice. No end justifies an immoral means. In terms of readjustment after victory, the victorious, if their cause was just, may exact full reparation of the original injustice suffered, full compensation for losses, but the killing of surviving contestants or their enslavement in the execution of such judgement would seem to be an extreme penalty and the practice of civilization has abolished it.
