Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma

Photos © Aditya Mohan.

Introduction: Understanding the Maxim "Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma"

The Latin phrase "Silent enim leges inter arma," often translated as "In times of war, law falls silent," has resonated through centuries of legal and ethical discourse. This maxim, attributed to the Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero in his speech "Pro Milone" in 52 BC, captures a stark reality observed across different eras and civilizations: during periods of armed conflict, the normalcy of legal safeguards and the rule of law often takes a backseat to the exigencies of war.

Alternatively phrased as "Inter arma enim silent leges" in popular culture, such as in an episode of Star Trek, the expression also translates to "Among arms, laws are silent," or "In times of war, law remains silent." This rephrasing carries the same heavy implication: during a military emergency, civil laws may be suspended or overshadowed by the pressing national interest in self-defense. Such circumstances raise profound questions about the balance between security and liberty, the scope of executive power, and the resilience of legal institutions during crises.

As we delve deeper into the implications of this principle, it's crucial to explore not just the historical and philosophical background that gave rise to this maxim but also the contemporary relevance and the debates it engenders in modern legal and ethical contexts. This article aims to unpack these dimensions, offering a comprehensive critique of the premise that in war, legal principles may be silenced for the sake of survival and national security.

The Invocation of "Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma" in U.S. History 

Throughout U.S. history, the maxim "Silent enim leges inter arma" has found concrete expression in several critical moments, particularly during times of national crisis and war. These instances often reflect the tension between national security and individual rights, showcasing the challenges faced by democratic institutions in maintaining legal norms while responding to existential threats.

Civil War: Ex Parte Merryman and Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus

One of the most notable early instances occurred during the American Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln faced the daunting task of preserving the Union. In 1861, Lincoln suspended the right to habeas corpus, a critical legal safeguard against arbitrary detention. This suspension was aimed at arresting and detaining individuals deemed threats to public safety and national security without immediate judicial oversight.

This action prompted the landmark decision in Ex parte Merryman by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, sitting as a judge of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. Taney ruled that the President could not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus nor authorize a military officer to do so. Moreover, he asserted that a military officer had no right to arrest and detain a person not subject to military law—except in aid of judicial authority and under its control. This decision highlighted the constitutional boundaries supposed to constrain executive power, even in wartime.

World War II: Hirabayashi and Yasui Cases

The theme of legal suspension reemerged during World War II, a period marked by heightened fears and significant challenges to civil liberties. In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court faced the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States and Yasui v. United States. These cases tested the constitutionality of curfews imposed on Japanese Americans, a minority group significantly affected by wartime policies following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

In Hirabayashi, the Supreme Court upheld the government's decision to enforce curfews targeting Japanese Americans, arguing that such measures were justified during a state of war with Japan. The decision effectively endorsed the notion that in times of war, certain liberties could be compromised—a stance that mirrored the Cicero maxim. The companion case, Yasui, decided on the same day, reaffirmed this principle, further solidifying the wartime erosion of citizen rights under the guise of national security.

These historical instances reflect a broader pattern wherein the pressures and fears of war lead to significant, sometimes drastic, deviations from peacetime legal norms. They underscore the enduring relevance and controversy of "Silent enim leges inter arma" in American legal thought, highlighting the ongoing debate over the balance between security and civil liberties.

The Invocation of "Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma" in U.K. History

In the UK, the principle encapsulated by "Silent enim leges inter arma" has been tested and interpreted in various ways, particularly during times of war. Unlike some historical interpretations that suggest a complete suspension of law during armed conflict, the UK's approach, especially in modern times, reflects a more nuanced balance between maintaining legal norms and addressing national security concerns.

World War II: Liversidge v. Anderson

A pivotal case that illustrates the British stance on the rule of law during wartime is Liversidge v. Anderson [1942] AC 206. This case arose during World War II, under the conditions of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939, which granted the government extensive powers to detain individuals thought to be a threat to national security. The appellant, Liversidge, was detained under a regulation that allowed the Home Secretary to intern individuals if he had "reasonable cause to believe" they might be dangerous to public safety or the defense of the realm.

The majority of the House of Lords deferred to the executive's discretion, emphasizing the importance of security during wartime. However, Lord Atkin delivered a dissenting opinion that has since become famous for its defense of civil liberties even in times of national crisis. He argued, "In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace." His statement was a powerful affirmation that the principles of justice should not be entirely forsaken even under the direst circumstances.

The Contemporary Perspective and International Law

In more recent times, the UK's adherence to legal norms during conflicts is also evident at the international level, particularly through its participation in war crimes tribunals. These tribunals are predicated on the notion that even during warfare, certain legal standards must be upheld, specifically regarding the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians. This international stance contrasts sharply with the more traditional interpretation of "Silent enim leges inter arma" and indicates a significant evolution in legal thought from Cicero's time to today.

The UK's legal history reflects a complex relationship with the principle that law falls silent during war. While there have been periods of significant legal suspension, as seen during World War II, there is also a strong thread of maintaining legal integrity and justice even in the face of grave threats. Lord Atkin's dissent in Liversidge v. Anderson serves as a reminder of the perennial tension between security and liberty, a debate that continues to shape legal discourse in the UK and beyond.

The Essence of War: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

War, as a human endeavor, has transformed significantly over the centuries, not only in how it is conducted but also in its implications both domestically and internationally. These changes are influenced by technological advances, changes in international law, and evolving societal values.

Historical vs. Contemporary Nature of War

Historically, wars were often viewed as contests of strength and strategy between states, primarily fought by organized armies and with clear objectives such as territorial gain or the defense of sovereignty. These conflicts were typically defined by formal declarations of war and concluded with peace treaties. The impact on civilian populations, while significant, was often a secondary consideration to military and strategic objectives.

In contrast, contemporary warfare often features asymmetric conflicts, including guerrilla warfare, cyberwarfare, and terrorism. Modern wars are less likely to be between states and more likely to involve non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or private militias. Additionally, today's conflicts are more likely to be scrutinized under the lens of international law, including humanitarian law which aims to protect non-combatants.

Domestic vs. International Conflicts

Within the U.S., historical conflicts like the Civil War had profound impacts on the national consciousness and legal structures, shaping the trajectory of civil rights and federal-state relations. In modern times, domestic "wars" in the U.S. often refer to metaphorical wars, such as those on drugs or poverty, which also have significant impacts on policy and civil liberties. On the international front, recent conflicts such as Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas are characterized by their international implications and the involvement of multiple state and non-state actors across borders. These conflicts also highlight the complexity of modern warfare where conventional battle lines are blurred, and the international community often plays a role, whether through sanctions, humanitarian aid, or peacekeeping efforts.

Influence of Wars on Populations

The impact of war, whether internal or external, on populations is profound and multifaceted. In external conflicts, such as Russia-Ukraine, the direct effects include loss of life, displacement of populations, and economic devastation. Such wars can also lead to significant international refugee crises and global economic impacts due to disruptions in international trade and relations.

Internal conflicts, or those fought within a country, often lead to long-lasting divisions within societies, impacting national identity and social cohesion. For example, the U.S. Civil War's legacy can still be felt in various aspects of American society, from racial relations to regional disparities.

Both types of conflicts tend to have deep psychological impacts on populations, leading to generational trauma and significant shifts in national policies and priorities. The presence of war crimes tribunals and international oversight attempts to mitigate some of these impacts by holding perpetrators accountable and establishing norms that protect human rights.

Overall, the evolution of warfare from a historical to a contemporary context shows a shift from state-centric conflicts to more complex scenarios involving a wide array of actors and impacting global politics and humanitarian conditions more profoundly. Each conflict, whether internal or external, shapes its population and the international community in unique and lasting ways.

Conclusion: Reflecting on "Silent Enim Leges Inter Arma" in Today's World

The maxim "Silent enim leges inter arma," or "In times of war, law falls silent," encapsulates a critical dilemma faced during wartime throughout history. Historically, extraordinary measures such as the suspension of habeas corpus were often justified by the adage that the safety of the people becomes the supreme law. These measures were intended to allow swift and decisive action to protect national security in the face of imminent threats.

In today's global landscape, however, the situations we face often differ significantly from the clear-cut conflicts of the past. Modern wars may be decentralized, involve non-state actors, and span across conventional and cyber battlegrounds. Although the direct threats might not always be apparent or immediate, the implications of suspending civil liberties can be profound and far-reaching. 

The suspension of habeas corpus or similar rights today can lead to significant consequences, undermining trust in governmental institutions and eroding the rule of law. Such actions risk not only the infringement of individual freedoms but also the degradation of international human rights standards. Moreover, in a world increasingly governed by international law and global scrutiny, deviations from legal norms invite international criticism and can impact diplomatic relations.

Thus, while the principle "Silent enim leges inter arma" historically provided a rationale for overriding certain legal protections in times of dire need, its application in the contemporary world must be carefully weighed against the potential for long-term damage to civil liberties and legal integrity. As we navigate the complexities of modern conflicts, both visible and covert, the challenge lies in balancing security needs with the imperative to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights. This balance is crucial not only for maintaining democratic values but also for fostering a stable, just, and peaceful international order.

Further read