Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/464

 in treaties with Mexico (5th April 1831), Venezuela (20th January 1836), Peru (6th Sept. 1870), Salvador (6th December 1870) and Italy (26th February 1871), have agreed to accept the commander’s declaration as provided in the Japanese Prize Law. Wharton quotes in his International Law Digest a passage from a despatch of Mr Secretary Forsyth (18th May 1837) in which he states that “it is an ordinary duty of the naval force of a neutral during either civil or foreign wars to convoy merchant vessels of the nation to which it belongs to the ports of the belligerents. This, however, should not be done in contravention of belligerent rights as defined by the law of nations or by treaty.” The Spanish Naval Instructions (24th April 1898) in the war with the United States granted unconditional exemption to convoyed neutral ships (article 11). The subject has now been dealt with by the Declaration of London (1908–1909), which requires the commander of a convoy to give a statement in writing as to the character of the vessels and cargoes (see ). A neutral merchant ship, travelling under enemy’s convoy, places itself, with the assistance of the belligerent force, beyond the application of the belligerent right of visit and search, and thus commits a breach of neutrality.

Belligerent Rights.—Since the declaration of Paris providing that blockades in order to be binding must be effective, that is to say, must be maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy’s coast, the tendency has been to give a precise form to all the obligations of the blockading belligerent. Thus it is now generally agreed that

notification to the neutral should be sufficiently detailed to enable neutral vessels to estimate, with practical accuracy, the extent of their risks. French writers consider a general notification, though desirable, as insufficient, and hold an individual notification to each neutral ship which presents itself at the line of blockade as requisite. This theory was applied by France in the. Franco-German War, and earlier by the Northern States in the American Civil War. The new Japanese Prize Law (1894) does not attempt to prescribe any such notification to each ship, but sets out that notice of blockade to each ship is either actual or constructive. “Actual” it describes as being when the master is shown to have had knowledge of the blockade, in whatever way he may have acquired such knowledge, whether by direct warning from a Japanese warship or from any other source; “constructive,” when a notification of its existence has been made to the proper authorities of the state to which the vessel belongs, and sufficient time has elapsed for such authorities to communicate the notification to the subjects of that nation, whether or not they have in fact communicated it. No blockade, however, was attempted by the Japanese government, and the application of the rules was not put to the test. In the war with Spain the United States proclamation of the investment of Cuba stated that an efficient force would be posted, so as to prevent the entrance and exit of vessels from the blockaded ports, and that any neutral vessel approaching or attempting to leave any of them, “without notice or knowledge” of the establishment of the blockade, would be duly warned by the commander of the blockading forces, who would endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and where such endorsement was made. The words “without notice or knowledge” were explained fully in the instructions to blockading vessels (20th June 1898). “Neutral vessels,” said these instructions, “are entitled to notification of a blockade before they can be made prize for its attempted violation.” “The character of this notification is not material. It may be actual, as by a vessel of the blockading force, or constructive, as by a proclamation of the government maintaining the blockade, or by common notoriety. If a neutral vessel can be shown to have notice of the blockade in any way, she is good prize” and should be sent in for adjudication; but should the formal notice not have been given, the rule of constructive knowledge arising from notoriety should be construed in a manner liberal to the neutral.” Thus the United States government abandoned the system of individual notification inserted in the proclamation of 19th April 1861, which was only found practicable in the case of vessels which had presumably sailed without knowledge. In such cases it was provided by the more recent instructions that they should be boarded by an officer, who should enter the notice in the ship’s log, such entry to include the name of the blockading vessel giving notice, the extent of the blockade, and the date and place, verified by his official signature. The vessel was then to be set free, with a warning that, should she again attempt to enter the same or any other blockaded port, she would be good prize. The Declaration of London (1908–1909) exhaustively treats of this subject and has regulated it with a leaning towards continental views (see ).

Angary, or Droit d’Angarie, is a contingent belligerent right, arising out of necessity of war, to dispose over, use and destroy, if need be, property belonging to neutral states. During the Franco-German War imminent necessity was pleaded by the German government, as the justification of using force to seize and sink six British coal-ships in the Seine

to prevent French gun-boats from running up the river and interfering with the tactics of the German army operating on its banks. The captains of the vessels refused to enter into any agreement with the commanding German general, and the vessels were then sunk by being fired upon. The, British government raised no objection to the exercise of the right, and confined itself to demanding compensation for the owners, which the German government declared itself ready to pay. Count Bismarck evidently felt the use which might be made against Germany, as a neutral power, of such an extreme measure, and took care in the correspondence with the British government to emphasize the pressing character of the danger, which could not be otherwise parried.

A case given in the text-books as another one of angary during the same war was the temporary seizure and conversion to war purposes of Swiss and Austrian rolling-stock in Alsace, without any apparent military necessity, Ordinary private neutral property on belligerent soil, it must be remembered, follows the fate of private property generally. The only distinction between the right of angary and the right of assimilating private neutral property to private property generally on belligerent soil which seems based on reason is that, whereas private property of neutrals generally which has remained on belligerent soil is sedentary, or, so to speak, domiciled there, neutral vessels are mere visitors with a distinct external domicile. The writer thinks the assimilation of neutral railway carriages to neutral vessels in this respect not unreasonable.

A neutral state in its corporate capacity, we have seen, must abstain from acts which can be of assistance to either belligerent, and it is bound to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent its territory being used as a base for belligerent operations. The duties of a neutral state as a state go no further. Commercial acts of its citizens, even the export

of arms and munitions of war to a belligerent country, do not, in the present state of international usage, so long as both belligerents are free to profit by such acts alike, involve liability on the part of the neutral state. But relief from the obligation of repressing breaches of neutrality by contraband traffic of subjects has its counterpart in the right granted to belligerent warships of visit and search of neutral merchant vessels, and in the possible condemnation, according to circumstances, of the ship and confiscation of goods held to be contraband.