"In point of fact the period authorities on international law do make a definite distinction between the treatment of the civilian population of a hostile nation state and the suppression of rebellion staged by one's own subject."

So once a country has been subdued and its people made subjects of the conquering nation then they can be treated almost however one wishes? How convenient. Treat the people nicely while you're taking away their independence, liberty and right to self-determination and then you may harshly repress any subsequent attempt to get that independence back. International law was flawed then for the same reasons it is still flawed today - it is fundamentally bound to state interests and often serves the whims of the few regardless of the views of the many. That's not to say that I don't appreciate your (and others) research into the subject or that I view it as irrelevant, but I think that if people are going to be judged for their actions, a whole host of factors need to be taken into account, of which law is but one.

Regards,
Chris