It would also be to disregard the rights of humanity if the crew of a warship were expected to surrender to the guns of an enemy without resistance on their own part.

No State can regard its duty to humanity as less valid in respect of men defending their country than in respect of the subjects of a foreign Power.
The Austrian Government is therefore of opinion that its former assurance to the Washington Cabinet could not be held to apply to armed merchant vessels, since these, according to the legal standards prevailing, whereby hostilities are restricted to organised military forces, must be regarded as privateers (freebooters) which are liable to immediate destruction.

History shows us that, according to the _general_ law of nations, merchant vessels have never been justified in resisting the exercise by warships of the right of taking prizes.
But even if a standard to this effect could be shown to exist, it would not mean that the vessels had the right to provide themselves with guns.

It should also be borne in mind that the arming of merchant ships must necessarily alter the whole conduct of warfare at sea, and that such alteration cannot correspond to the views of those who seek to regulate maritime warfare according to the principles of humanity.
As a matter of fact, since the practice of privateering was discontinued, until a few years back no Power has ever thought of arming merchant vessels.

Throughout the whole proceedings of the second Peace Conference, which was occupied with all questions of the laws of warfare at sea, not a single word was ever said about the arming of merchant ships.