No quarter, duringmilitary conflict orpiracy, implies that combatants would not be takenprisoner, but executed. Since theHague Convention of 1899, it is considered awar crime; it is also prohibited incustomary international law and by theRome Statute. Article 23 of theHague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given".[1]
The termno quarter may originate from an order by the commander of a victorious army that they will not quarter (house) captured enemy combatants. Therefore, none can be taken prisoner and all enemy combatants must be killed.[2] A second derivation, given equal prominence in theOxford English Dictionary (OED), is that quarter (n.17) can mean "Relations with, or conduct towards, another" as in Shakespeare'sOthello, Act II, scene iii, line 180, "Friends all [...] In quarter, and in termes, like bride and groome". So "no quarter" may also mean refusal to enter into an agreement (relations) with an enemy attempting to surrender. TheOED mentions a third possible derivation but says "The assertion of De Brieux (Origines [...] de plusieurs façons de parler (1672) 16) that it arose in an agreement between the Dutch and Spanish, by which the ransom of an officer or private was to be a quarter of his pay, is at variance with the sense of the phrasesto give or receive quarter."
During theFirst English Civil War, theLong Parliament issued anordinance of no quarter to the Irish on 24 October 1644 in response toConfederate Ireland electing to send troops in support ofCharles I of England against them:
An Ordinance Commanding that no Officer or Soldier either by Sea or Land, shall give any Quarter to any Irishman, or to any papist born in Ireland, which shall be taken in Arms against the Parliament in England.[3]
By the 17th century,siege warfare was an exact art, the rules of which were so well understood that wagering on the outcome and duration of a siege became a popular craze; the then-enormous sum of £200,000 was alleged to have been bet on the outcome of theSecond Siege of Limerick in 1691.[4] Professional honour demanded a defence, but if agarrison surrendered when "a practicable breach" had been made, they were given "quarter". The garrison signaled their intent to surrender by "beating thechamade"; if accepted, they were generally allowed to retain their weapons, and received asafe conduct to the nearest friendly territory. If a garrison continued their defence beyond this point, the surrender was not accepted, hence "no quarter"; the besiegers were then "permitted" to sack the town, and the garrison was often killed.[5]
In some circumstances, the opposing forces would signal their intention to give no quarter by using a red flag (the so-calledbloody flag).[6][7] However, the use of a red flag to signal no quarter does not appear to have been universal among combatants.Black flags have been used to signify that quarter would be given if surrender was prompt; the best-known example is theJolly Roger used bypirates to intimidate a target crew into surrender. By promising quarter, pirates avoided costly and dangerous sea battles which might leave both ships crippled and dozens of critical crew dead or incapacitated.[8]
Other "no quarter" incidents took place during theBattle of the Alamo in 1836, the 1850 to 1864Taiping Rebellion, and at theBattle of Tippermuir in 1644 when ScottishCovenanters used thebattle cry "Jesus, and no quarter".[9]
Underinternational humanitarian law, "it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given". This was established under Article 23(d) of the1907 Hague ConventionIV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land.[1] Since a judgment on the law relating towar crimes andcrimes against humanity at theNuremberg trials in October 1946, the provisions of the 1907 Hague Convention—including Article 23(d)'s explicit prohibition to declare that no quarter will be given—are considered to be part of thecustomary laws of war and are binding upon all parties in an international armed conflict.[10]
