Regarded from a higher point of view, this theory can at any rate be considered in connection with possible circumstances, and its application be more closely defined; from the dictates of humanity, which the Austrian Government and the Washington Cabinet have equally adopted as their guide, we can lay down the general principle that, in exercising the right to destroy enemy merchant shipping, loss of life should be avoided as far as possible.
This necessitates a warning on the part of the belligerent before exercising the right of destruction.

And he can here adopt the method indicated by the theory of the Union Government referred to, according to which _the commander of the warship himself issues a warning to the vessel about to be sunk_, so that crew and passengers can be brought into safety at the last moment; or, on the other hand, the Government of the belligerent state can, when it is considered an imperative necessity of war, give warning, with complete effect, _before the sailing of the vessel_ to be sunk; or, finally, such Government can, when preparing comprehensive measures against the enemy traffic at sea, have recourse to _a general warning applicable to all enemy vessels concerned_.
That the principle as to providing for the safety of persons on board is liable to exceptions has been admitted by the Union Government itself.

The Austrian Government believes, however, that destruction without warning is not only justifiable in cases of attempted escape or resistance.

It would seem, to take one instance only, that the character of the vessel itself should be taken into consideration; thus merchant ships or other private craft, placed in the service of war operations, whether as transports or guardships, or with a military crew or weapons on board for the purpose of any kind of hostilities, should doubtless, according to general law, be liable to destruction without notice.

The Austrian Government need not go into the question of how far a belligerent is released from any obligation as to provision for safety of human life when his opponent sinks enemy merchant vessels without such previous warning, as in the well-known cases, previously referred to, of the _Elektra_, _Dubrovnik_, _Zagreb_, etc., since, in this respect, despite its evident right, the Austrian Government itself has never returned like for like.
Throughout the entire course of the war Austro-Hungarian warships have not destroyed a single enemy merchant vessel without previous warning, though this may have been of a general character.
The theory of the Union Government, frequently referred to, also admits of several interpretations; the question arises, for instance, whether, as has frequently been maintained, only armed resistance can be held to justify destruction of ship and persons on board, or whether the same applies to resistance of another sort, as, for example, when the crew purposely refrain from getting the passengers into the boats (the case of the _Ancona_), or when the passengers themselves decline to enter the boats.